Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL ( By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL ( By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 June.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Public Expenditure

Mr. Cash: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the scope for increasing value for money in public spending programmes.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): Improvements worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year have already been made, but there is still substantial scope for achieving more.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Audit Commission that about £1 billion worth of savings could be obtained in terms of increased value in public services by applying the Audit Commission's criteria? Will he congratulate the Mid-Staffordshire health authority, which, by applying new management techniques, has managed to save this year and for ensuing years more than £100,000 in revenue as a result of its techniques to improve the quality of public services in its area?

Mr. MacGregor: I confirm my hon. Friend's comments about the Audit Commission. It has identified possible savings of more than £1 billion a year since its studies in 1983, but my hon. Friend will know that that is in relation to local authority services. There is still substantial scope for better value for money and improvements in local authority spending through all the techniques that the

Commission has suggested and which we are applying in central Government. The same principle applies in the Health Service and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the techniques that can be used at district and health authority level and throughout the Health Service. The same applies in central Government as a whole.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public sector bureaucracies have a sponge-like capacity to absorb taxpayers' money, and that increases in funding are all too rarely matched by equivalent improvements in the quality of services delivered? Will he therefore undertake that if, in the coming weeks and months, any suggestions are made to him that there is a need for real increases in funding in particular Departments, he will ask searching questions to see whether the administrative systems in those Departments are as streamlined as they might be?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I attach great importance to this, which is shown by the fact that in the last public expenditure White Paper there were more than 1,200 output measures and performance indicators. I intend to apply the same priority in the forthcoming public expenditure round. I hope my hon. Friend will recognise the considerable advances that we have already made. For example, in the machinery of government alone, by the rigorous application of various techniques, we are now producing savings of about £750 million a year.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister tell the House what persuades him not to invest money in the prevention of tax evasion when all the studies suggest that money invested in that way would recoup far more than is presently recouped?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have increased the resources to deal with tax evasion.

Tax Revenue

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of reductions in the tax rates on the buoyancy of tax revenues since 1979.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): A precise estimate cannot be made but certainly the reduction in taxes increases motivation and encourages enterprise. Tax cuts will lead to a healthier, more competitive economy, higher incomes and more resources to improve public services.

Mr. Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of tax revenue that comes from the highest paid has increased as a result of the reduction in high marginal rates of tax? Is this not entirely in line with the American experience, which shows that a cut in taxes increases revenue?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The proportion of income tax revenue paid by the top 10 per cent. has risen from 34 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37½ per cent. in 1986–87.

Mr. Carter-Jones: In looking at the figures, has the Minister considered the public's attitude to increased public expenditure on health and education in preference to tax cuts? Has he any observations to make on that?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the Government's objective to have a good Health Service and a good education service. We also believe that tax cuts are long overdue and are necessary to improve our economic performance.

Inflation

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he assesses to be the main factors currently influencing the level of inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The economic policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. MacKay: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does he agree that the people who feel most vulnerable when there is a high inflation are pensioners? Does he further agree that there are certain factors in inflation figures which affect pensioners more than other parts of the community? Can he say whether those factors in commodity prices are going up faster than other items in the inflation figures?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that those who are most affected in the community by high inflation are the elderly, pensioners and others on fixed incomes. That is why the greatest social service that a Government can perform is to bring inflation down and work towards stable prices. As for the slightly different consumption patterns of the elderly and the average member of the population, my hon. Friend may be aware that there is a pensioner price index, which addresses itself to that. In fact, during the period when we have been in office the pensioner price index has risen by less than the retail prices index as a whole.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: What on earth has the Government's economic policy got to do with plummeting oil prices and other commodity prices?

Mr. Lawson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government's success in getting inflation down long predated the fall in the oil price.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who say that we can have a little more public expenditure and a little more inflation are in fact advocating a dangerous course? Does he further agree that there is no guarantee that more public expenditure would lead to more employment or, indeed, increased services, and that if it were the job of the Government to employ people we would all be living in eastern Europe, with dreary standards of living and dreary services?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is making a point that is well understood by all those who have responsibility for the conduct of economic policy, not only in this country, but throughout the Western world. Indeed, in all the European countries, where, sadly, unemployment is too high, if there were a simple answer of bringing down unemployment by increasing public expenditure, that would have been introduced long ago. If the policies of right hon. Members in the Labour party were introduced, and there were an increase in public expenditure of £24 billion, the result would be sharply higher inflation and sharply higher unemployment.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to test the validity of his claim about the effect

of his Government's policies on inflation by publishing in the Official Report the calculations made by the Central Statistical Office of the reasons why inflation has fallen over the past year?

Mr. Lawson: The Central Statistical Office merely reports what has occurred. It is not engaged in economic analysis.

Inflation

Mr. Proctor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the economy to achieve a negative rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: The Government's objective is stable prices.

Mr. Proctor: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the negative rate of inflation in West Germany, one of our major international industrial competitors. Will he give a commitment that the rate of inflation in this country will remain in low single figures? Does he agree that only if that inflation rate remains in low single figures for a considerable period will the real benefits of low inflation bear fruit?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend points to the fact that in Germany inflation is currently slightly less than zero. It is a negative figure. I think that that is likely to be a temporary phenomenon. The plain fact is that throughout the world the same sort of economic policies have been pursued. Therefore, it is not that surprising that inflation has come down worldwide. Our inflation has come down even faster than in other countries. It is now under 3 per cent. for the first time in over 18 years. I am confident that it will stay low as long as these policies remain in force.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that there is no merit whatsoever in negative inflation, commonly known as deflation?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, as I am sure he was, to my answer, he would have heard me say that the Government's objective is stable prices, not falling prices.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's answers to the last two questions, is it not the case that one of the pressures in the pipeline to increase inflation is the excessive level of wage settlements? Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to hammer home to the Confederation of British Industry and others that their spinelessness in the face of excessive wage demands will affect their own competitiveness and is likely to cause worse inflation and more unemployment?

Mr. Lawson: It is certainly a major cause of the present high level of unemployment. Inflation is now down to 2·8 per cent. at the most recent count, and if the tax reductions in the Budget are taken into account, the best approximation that we have of the growth in the cost of living over the past year is less than 1 per cent. Yet average earnings, according to officially recorded figures, have gone up by about 7½ per cent. This is inevitably damaging to Britain's competitiveness in world markets, damaging to orders, damaging to the amount of business that can be done by British firms, and therefore damaging to jobs. It is management's responsibility to take a far firmer grip on their costs, especially their pay costs, than they have been doing hitherto.

Mr. Bell: What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say to newspapers such as The Economist which say that the inflation rate will go up between 4 and 5 per cent. next year as a consequence of the oil price reductions working through the economy?

Mr. Lawson: We shall publish a forecast at the normal time and in the normal way, and I think it will be found that the track record of forecasts published by the Treasury is rather better than that of forecasts published outside bodies, including The Economist.The plain fact is that inflation is now under 3 per cent. Although at the moment it is flattered to some extent by the mortgage rate element in the index, even if one takes that out inflation is still around 3·1 per cent.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public do not understand the wide scope of the retail prices index, as it covers things such as electricity and gas prices, rates and so on? Will he publish a clear explanation to the public showing exactly what the RPI represents and the fact that it is based on real surveys of expenditure?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is based on those factors. Sometimes there are people who find it difficult to believe that inflation is as low as it is when they consider one particular price which is only a small proportion of total consumer expenditure. The responsibility for the RPI and its publication lies not with me but with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I shall draw his attention to what my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Unemployment Costs

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in the north-west region.

Mr. MacGregor: A regional breakdown of unemployment and supplementary benefit paid to the unemployed would be available only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to estimate the tax revenue forgone.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer, because one of the bones of contention is that this Government, who have no interest in regional affairs, do not even know what the true cost of unemployment in the north-west is. The social costs are massively higher than even the direct economic costs to the Treasury. If the Government are sincere about unemployment, what practical steps are being taken that will lead to a reduction in unemployment, and when will that begin to take place?

Mr. MacGregor: All the Government's economic policies are designed to produce a more competitive economy which helps with the creation of real permanent jobs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at a time of a rising labour force, the success of this is measured by the fact that nearly 1 million net new jobs have been created in the economy as a whole since 1983. He will be interested to know that in that figure there are 82,000 jobs in the north-west. In addition, he will be aware that the northwest has received a substantial and fair proportion of the specific employment measures that have been introduced by the Government and added to in the last Budget. That represents a total expenditure of £3 billion this year, compared with £300 million in 1979 when the Government took office.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, which is in the north-west, unemployment is at half the national average? One reason for this is that firms are rushing out of Manchester, because of the lunatic policies of the local authorities there, into Cheshire, where the Conservative-controlled local authorities have much more sensible policies, producing lower rate burdens?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. All those who urge unnecessary higher spending in local authorities should be aware of the consequences of that for firms which find their costs increased by much higher rates.

Mr. Parry: Is not the real cost in regions such as Merseyside, the north-west and the north-east, the mass unemployment, the human misery, the marriage breakups, the nervous breakdowns and the number of young people committing suicide because of long-term unemployment? Is this not the real, terrible cost of mass unemployment in our regions?

Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely why we have increased substantially the amount of money spent on employment and training measures during our period of office. The hon. Gentleman must know that if public spending rises to the level advocated by his Front Bench that will create much greater unemployment in firms which are doing well in our economy.

Mr. Churchill: As a Manchester Member, may I say that it is a matter of considerable satisfaction that more than 80,000 new jobs have been created in the north-west since the 1983 general election'' If that rate of job creation is projected into the months ahead, at what point does my right hon. Friend foresee it overtaking the rate at which new people come into the labour force, thereby bringing a net reduction in the number of unemployed?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has fairly drawn attention to the considerable increase in the labour force in recent years. In fact, there was an increase of more than 560,000 in the last year for which figures are available. That demographic factor is now beginning to change and it will be a helpful factor in dealing with unemployment.

Mr. Eastham: May I draw the Minister's attention to the Employment Select Committee's investigation into long-term unemployment, in which it points out that some people have been unemployed for three years? Is it not time that the Government seriously considered all those facts, with a view to taking positive action to alleviate the unemployment problems of these people?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government gave a detailed response to the first report of the Employment Select Committee, which has led to the Committee revising its proposals considerably in a downward direction. The restart programme, which is now going nationwide, is designed especially to help the long-term unemployed, and we are undertaking many other measures. It is crucial to know at what point extra public expenditure on these measures becomes counterproductive, not only because they do not produce real benefit in terms of extra places, but because they are a cost on existing employers.

Mr. Favell: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the more a town hall spends, the less there is to encourage new


enterprises into an area? In my constituency of Stockport, which to the uninitiated is probably indistinguishable from Manchester, it takes half as many men to empty a dustbin as it does in Manchester, and unemployment is now less than 10 per cent, which is far less than the regional average and, indeed, is less than the national average.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, of which I hope everyone in the north-west will take note.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Chief Secretary simply give one straight answer to one straight question? How many jobs have been lost, net, in the British economy since the Government were elected seven years ago?

Mr. MacGregor: There was a considerable reduction in jobs in the period 1979 to 1981. It was a good deal less than 1 million—about 700,000. A large part of that was in the period 1979 to 1981, when we were coping not only with a worldwide recession but with the considerable overmanning that took place under the Labour Government. Since 1983 that trend has gone substantially the other way, and there are now nearly 1 million net new jobs.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the Government's policy on the level of public spending on the Health Service, education and housing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Weetch: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review Government policy over the level of public spending on health, education and housing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The level of all public spending programmes will be reviewed as usual in this year's public expenditure survey.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that all the evidence shows that most people consider that the first priority should be more public spending on health, education and housing? They are right, of course. Do the outrageous remarks on council housing by the Minister for Information Technology represent Government policy, or were they just remarks of a Minister who wants to show himself to be a stupid clown?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that what people want are realistic and prudent public spending programmes, with the right priorities and value for every pound that is spent, and that is what the Government have been delivering. In two of the main areas that were picked out by the hon. Gentleman — education and health — he knows that expenditure per pupil on education has risen substantially in real terms under this Government, whereas it fell by 2 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government. Equally, we have devoted particular priority to health, where expenditure in real terms is up by 24 per cent.

Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that the infrastructure in these three sectors is in a very poor state in various parts of the country? May I underline the fact that it is a better policy option to have significant expenditure in these three sectors than to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 25p?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that in housing, for example, where he has particularly in mind

the infrastructure, because of the very substantial and welcome switch to the provision of housing in the private sector, and through owner-occupation, we have cut down the amount of money that is involved in new council house building. The renovation programme has been increased substantially, in real terms, under this Government, which was a necessary and sensible priority. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many people throughout the country who, rightly, strongly believe that the present level of direct taxation on people of average and below average incomes is still too high.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the prime objectives of the Conservative Government in 1979 was to cut both taxation and public expenditure? May I draw his attention to the answer that he gave to me only a few days ago, which proves that public expenditure, in real terms, increased by 11 per cent. in 1984–85, and is forecast to be 8 per cent. above the 1979 level in 1985–86? Is this not proof that the Government have not succeeded in cutting public expenditure? May we have an assurance that they will do so in future?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that, rather like steering an oil tanker, it takes a considerable time, once one has tried to change direction, for the results to show through. I am sure he will welcome the fact that, as a proportion of our gross national product, public expenditure is now at the 1978–79 level and is planned to come back almost to the levels of the 1960s.

Mr. McCrindle: Taking a slightly different point of view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome indications that desirable increases in the level of spending on health, housing and education may now be becoming progressively acceptable to the Government? Will he also accept that those who take that view in no way wish the Government to turn their back on tax cuts, but merely seek a desirable balance, in the belief that that is the wish of the majority of the population?

Mr. MacGregor: I believe that a desirable balance is what this Government have been achieving. We have managed to achieve reductions in direct taxation and to obtain higher real spending in the priority areas which we have chosen, which accord with those of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister try to keep in step with the Prime Minister? She has observed that in recent years Britain has moved toward private affluence and public squalor, illustrated by the litter-strewn conditions of most parts of Britain.

Mr. MacGregor: When the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that there was too much litter around she was drawing attention to a phenomenon that has been common in Britain for many years. Many people share her view about the desirability of cleaning up areas to which she drew attention.

Mr. Galley: In view of my right hon. Friend's comments about balance, he may be able to accept that there are some sound arguments for very modest and carefully targeted increases in expenditure on hospitals, education and housing improvements. I say modest and carefully targeted. If he is able to accommodate any small increases in this year's public expenditure review, what will he do to ensure value for money and prevent additional


resources going down the plughole of waste and rising pay, and ensure that they are used to provide better patient care, better educational standards and better housing stock?

Mr. MacGregor: In earlier exchanges I outlined my priorities for getting better value for money for every £1 spent. That applies just as much to the Health Service as elsewhere. This year, as a result of value-for-money drives, we expect to devote about £150 million of extra funds to patient care. I can assure my hon. Friend that value for money will continue to be an important part of my attitude towards public expenditure. He also spoke about the danger to public expenditure of excess pay, meaning that that could lead to reductions in service or reductions in capital programmes. That is a message that we shall constantly have to drive home. If too much of the planned public spending total goes away in excess pay, less money is available for other services.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Chief Secretary aware that his answers will bring no comfort to all the people who, while they are waiting for operations, see hospital wards being closed, and that they will being no comfort to teachers, parents, students and everyone else anxious about education? They will bring no comfort to all the people who are desperately trying to find somewhere to live, or are living in totally unsuitable accommodation. Will he now admit once and for all that it is possible to spend more money in ways that will not only improve those essential services for the benefit of the community as a whole, but will provide some jobs for some of the people who are unemployed?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that, because of the priorities we have given to things like this, the waiting lists are down considerably compared to what they were when we came to power. The number of patients being treated is up considerably, by about 19 per cent. Considerable extra effort is going into the Health Service and the same applies to education. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to students. There are now 80,000 more students in higher education than there were seven years ago.

Mr. Dorrell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the large majority of our people provision for health and education comes exclusively from the public sector? We on the Government side want to see health provision and education improved for all the people, and is it not a necessary consequence of that that we want to see efficient public expenditure improved in those areas?

Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought it was clear that the drive that we are making, especially in the Health Service, to get greater efficiency in public expenditure is being taken very much with that in mind.

Mr. Kennedy: When the Minister is reviewing the Government's public expenditure on the Health Service, will he take the opportunity this year to do something about the fraudulent mechanics by which the rate of inflation that is applied internally in the Health Service is not the rate of inflation that the Government use as a means of calculating the real level of their expenditure on the Health Service? The Government use RPI, but everyone knows that the internal Health Service inflation costs are significantly higher than that.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman may not recall the period in the 1970s when public expenditure was getting out of control. One reason for that was that it was always planned in volume terms. Planning in cash terms and using the GDP deflator as an indicator is an important ingredient of proper public expenditure control.

Contingency Reserve

Sir David Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his review of public expenditure, he will consider the establishment of uncommitted contingency reserves in the major spending Departments which would be available to those Departments to meet unforeseen demands arising during the financial year in question; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): The purpose of the Reserve is to meet unforeseen demands arising during the year, for all spending Departments.

Sir David Price: Given my hon. Friend's defence of contingency reserves as a whole, why cannot the large spenders, who cannot be assumed to be more accurate than the Treasury, be allowed a contingency reserve, which is what one does in every large company, down to the smallest standards of budgets?

Mr. Brooke: As it is impossible to foresee on which programmes unforeseen demands on the Reserve will arise in the course of the year, the Reserve has to be central and not split among Departments. Specific departmental reserves would be unnecessary and inefficient.

Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend were to permit such a contingency reserve at the Ministry of Defence, will he stipulate that not one penny of that money should go to that sink of profligacy, the Procurement Executive, whose, incompetence and mismanagement have led to an appalling waste of money on Nimrod and the torpedo programme?

Mr. Brooke: As, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I have no intention of assigning such a contingency reserve to an individual Department, the question is hypothetical.

Exchange Rate

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for producing greater stability in the exchange rate.

Mr. Lawson: Since the Plaza agreement last year there has been a much greater readiness among the major powers to engage in concerted intervention as the need arises.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Chancellor aware that a consistently voiced frustration in British industry concerns both the problems of exporting into Europe, because of' the capriciousness of the exchange rates within Europe, and the difficulties in developing a united European ability to compete against the Americans, again because the exchange rate within Europe is subject to fluctuations? When will he fix the point at which it is feasible and beneficial to join the European monetary system?

Mr. Lawson: I agree that fluctuations in the exchange rate, despite the ability to secure forward cover in most cases, can be irksome for British exporters. I am also glad to say that British exporters have been increasing their


share of world markets over the past five years, for the first time in a long time. However, if British exporters took a firmer grip on their pay costs, as I said earlier, their success in export markets would be even greater than it has been.

Mr. Forman: I do not wish to repeat familiar Conservative arguments in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS at an early date, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, in any case, stability in interests rates and exchange rates would be greatly helped if there were further convergence in our national inflation rates and if every effort were bent to that end?

Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is now a much greater convergence of inflation rates, not least because we have succeeded in getting our inflation rate down so dramatically. As for the EMS, even if we were to join it—there are undoubtedly arguments for doing so—that would not affect fluctuations against the dollar, and it is the dollar that has been far and away the most volatile of the major currencies.

Mr. Latham: As the exchange rate has been so stable recently, and as inflation is under 3 per cent., what is preventing a further fall in the general level of interest rates, which would do so much good to help the Government's counter-inflation policy?

Mr. Lawson: I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, in the three months since the Budget, interest rates have already fallen by 2½ per cent.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has further plans to reduce public expenditure.

Mr. MacGregor: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Hamilton: As the Minister has been at pains in the course of that answer to talk about the great successes of the Health Service financial provision, how does he explain the report in the Daily Telegraph today that the Secretary of State for Social Services is putting in for a £1·7 billion increase in the Health Service provision? Is that designed to build on success, or to cover up failure?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member will know that it is a regular feature at this time of year for commentators to speculate and to throw out all sorts of guess figures into the air in the hope that one will eventually come down. I shall not comment on speculation in the press.

Mr. Leigh: What would be the effect on the unemployment trap if failure to curb public spending prevented my right hon. Friend from making significant tax cuts for the lower paid? Does this question not underline the need to achieve real value for money in the public service and not to pretend to the people that merely pouring increasing amounts of taxpayers' money into the bottomless pit of public spending will solve our problems?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to concentrate on value for money. One of the messages that we have to get over to many who comment in the media, and also to the public at large, is that we cannot achieve better services solely by throwing more money at the problems. Better value for money and

concentration on greater efficiency can do just as much. That is why in the road programme, for example, we are getting 20 per cent. more roads for every pound spent than in 1979.

Mr. Madden: What does the Chief Secretary say to people like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who earlier this week told us that his constituents would rather do without tax cuts if the price of tax cuts meant that less money would be spent on the National Health Service? Does the Chief Secretary think that the right hon. Gentleman is misreporting the views of his constituents, or does he think that those constituents are misguided?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already indicated that we have not reduced expenditure on the Health Service—quite the reverse. There has been a substantial increase in expenditure on the Health Service. Under the RAWP formula, introduced by a Labour Government, there is a provision to switch some resources from areas of high resource to areas that have been under-resourced under that formula over the years. That formula is now under review. It is one of the factors that is important. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear questions against the background of chat.

Dr. McDonald: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Information Technology that priority should be given to public spending rather than to tax cuts?

Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that on the Government side of the House we were all agreed that reducing the burden of taxation is an important priority. Clearly none of us would ever contemplate moving to the ridiculous levels of higher public spending that the hon. Lady and her colleagues advocate.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of political pressure from the public the reality is that it is impossible to reduce public expenditure and that we can pay for the many programmes that we wish for only by having genuine economic growth?

Mr. MacGregor: It is through genuine economic growth, which we have been achieving since 1981, that we can increase in real terms our public spending programmes in many areas under our existing plans and at the same time keep public expenditure level in real terms and reducing as a proportion of GDP.

Economic Recovery

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the criteria by which he judges signs of economic recovery.

Mr. Lawson: Since the trough of the recession in the first half of 1981 total output has risen by 13 per cent., investment by over 21 per cent. and manufacturing productivity by over 25 per cent.

Mr. Knox: When does my right hon. Friend think that his economic policies will be so successful that unemployment will start to fall?

Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the problem of unemployment is intimately connected with


the excessive level of pay increases in relation to productivity. If unit labour costs continue to rise at their present rate, far faster than in the countries of our major overseas competitors, it makes it difficult to get unemployment down, despite the fact that we have succeeded in generating nearly 1 million new jobs since the last general election—a fact to which I would have hoped that my hon. Friend would pay due tribute.

Mr. Pike: Will the Chancellor accept that while he may claim that output and productivity in manufacturing industry has increased since the depth of the trough of the recession, it is still below the figure for 1979? Surely the Government will not be able to claim credit until we are making more manufactured goods than we were in 1979, and until we have considerably reduced the present unacceptable level of unemployment.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Manufacturing productivity is substantially higher today than it was in 1979. What is more, the rise in manufacturing productivity under the Government has been substantially greater than it was under the Labour Government.

Personal Equity Plans

Mr. Wood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposed personal equity plans.

Mr. Norman Lamont: A large number have welcomed the scheme.

Mr. Wood: Many of us welcome the moves that the Government have made to encourage small private investment. However, there have been comments from some investment funds that they would like to see personal equity plans geared to them as well as to direct investment. What are the Government's views on those representations?

Mr. Lamont: Obviously we shall consider the representations carefully. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, we have said that for unit and investment trusts some investment will be permitted under the scheme. The precise limit is being looked at.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Boyes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended a memorial meeting for the late Lord Shinwell. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Boyes: Has the Prime Minister noted carefully that yesterday the United States House of Representatives supported the imposition of the strictest possible sanctions against the evil and repugnant apartheid regime in South Africa, and that that reflects the worldwide revulsion over what is happening in South Africa? Is it not shameful that the only two leaders sending signals of support to the evil regime in South Africa are President Reagan and herself?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The European Council of Heads of Government will meet in Europe next week and will decide what further measures to take.

Mr. Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend knows that her Government have rigorously enforced the mandatory sanctions on the sale of arms to South Africa. Can she assure the House that every other country has done so in exactly the same way and at the same level?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. We have rigorously enforced mandatory sanctions on arms to South Africa. Nevertheless, South Africa does not seem to be short of certain things, which seems to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. That shows the difficulties of a course of mandatory economic sanctions.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady says repeatedly that she wants negotiations and the suspension of violence in South Africa, which we would all like. The South African Government's response to her attitude is to deride negotiations, to undertake armed attacks on Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Angola, and to impose totalitarian controls on the press and public of the Republic of South Africa. Faced with those realities, is not the Prime Minister's vetoing of sanctions not so much caution or concern as supine appeasement of the apartheid regime? P. W. Botha is making use of the right hon. Lady. When will she stop that?

The Prime Minister: The question is whether adding economic sanctions, with the severe unemployment it would bring to South Africa—adding poverty and unemployment to an already difficult situation—the unemployment it would bring here, and the damage it would do to our shipping, would help the position in South Africa. I doubt very much whether it would. I think that it would aggravate it. It would mean that negotiations would not be brought about. I am still concerned that negotiations should be brought about. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have totally condemned the raids. I believe that they were responsible for stopping the success of the Eminent Persons Group.

Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Lady is concerned about employment, here or in South Africa, she had hotel-calculate the effect of what the Eminent Persons Group called the "descent into further violence". Sanctions may cost jobs, but the collapse that, will come without effective pressure on the South African Government will cost a great many more jobs both here and in South Africa. Will not the right hon. Lady accept that her present attitude amounts to doing nothing? Will she remind herself that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that the good people do nothing?

The Prime Minister: Many of us think that it is quite possible imposing strong mandatory economic sanctions on South Africa would add to the violence, and not detract from it, and would end all possibility of negotiations between the Government and the black people of South Africa, which is still our objective. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though this Government had done nothing. I do not think that he will find another industrialised Western country that has done more—art embargo on exports of arms, refusal to co-operate in the military sphere, recall of military attachés, discouraging scientific events, except where those contribute to the


ending of apartheid, cessation of oil exports to South Africa, prohibition of all new collaboration in the nuclear sector, cessation of exports of sensitive equipment to the police, banning all new Government loans, a commitment to take unilateral action on the banning of imports of Krugerrands — action that was taken — end of Government funding for trade missions and banning the import of all gold coins from South Africa. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to name a Western industrialised country that has done more?

Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Speaker — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer. There is no other country in the world that has a greater and closer relationship or a greater and closer responsibility than this country. A few months ago the Prime Minister was describing all that as a "teeny little bit." Will the right hon. Lady now do the effective thing and ban new investment in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: Tell me a Western industrialised country that has done more. The right hon. Gentleman cannot.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, in her White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" she urged the need for more part-time students? Is that not now very much the essence of our industrial future, in that we need more people to update their qualifications and retrain? Is there any need to wait for a loans scheme to give those people an incentive, because currently they pay both their maintenance costs and their fees?

The Prime Minister: Retraining, and therefore perhaps returning to university or to other advanced education colleges for further training, will be an important part of our future. Frequently, training takes place through industry itself or through industry sponsoring the requisite courses. I think that that is one of the best ways.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Do the Prime Minister and her Government represent the people of this nation? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should like the right hon. Lady to answer, bearing in mind that a recent opinion poll found that more than 50 per cent. of the people wanted her to take action against South Africa by way of sanctions. If the answer is no to sanctions, is it because of the financial interests of Conservative Back Benchers in their investments in South Africa? We want to know about that.

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Government do represent the people of this country. If we do not dash into full economic sanctions, as the Opposition would wish, it is because we agree with the reason that the Labour Government gave in the United Nations when they voted against full mandatory economic sanctions. At that time they said:
because we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures which the resolution calls for would produce the changes in South Africa which we would all like to see."—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 9.]
We would endorse that sentiment.

Mr. Spencer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the inner city initiative in Highfields in my constituency,

which is much welcomed by the people who live there, will press ahead notwithstanding the childish hostility of Leicester city council?

The Prime Minister: We believe that the inner cities initiative was widely welcomed. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall press ahead with it in the city he represents.

Dr. Owen: Since Canada, Holland and the Scandinavian countries have all done more than this country against South Africa, and since, if the Prime Minister is not careful, the United States Senate will pass. a modified Bill following the lead of the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister will again, as last summer, have to follow in the wake of President Reagan, would it not be better for her to adopt a more conciliatory approach and put forward constructive proposals which she could support and which other countries ought to be forced to support as well?

The Prime Minister: I deliberatly said major "Western industrialised country". No other has done more. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he. too, is against trade sanctions and has made his position clear in the articles he has written.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a typical headmaster and board of governors in my constituency would have discretion over a mere £4,000 out of their total budget? Will she have talks with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether a system can be instituted that would more fairly reflect the number of pupils in the school and give responsibility locally to the headmaster and the board of governors?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. That is a possible reform of education expenditure. My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any reform that will make the money spent on education more effective and produce better results for the pupils.

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister take particular note of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), because he expresses fears about the operation of the Torness power station, remembering that Lothian and the Borders fire board has also criticised safety measures at that station? Will she join the Edinburgh Evening News and the people of east Scotland in opposing the commissioning of that station—or have the lessons of Chernobyl been forgotten in this country?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, the commissioning of the station will depend upon its passing the very rigorous tests of the nuclear inspectorate, which are very rigorous indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our safety record in the nuclear industry is excellent. It is not long ago since some hon. Members in Scotland were preferring the AGR kind of reactor and extolling its virtues over others.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal party, who I understand is on a nuclear-freeze bus today—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend also take note of the presence of the leader of the Social Democratic—

Mr. Speaker: Get it in order please.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Redmond: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House her dual standards on South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I have said that we totally and utterly condemn the system of apartheid and that we condemn the raids, but, like the Labour party when it was in power, we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures that mandatory overall sanctions would call for would produce the changes in South Africa that we would all like to see. In the end, we shall have to come to negotiations between the Government of South Africa and the black people of South Africa. That is our purpose and we shall strain every sinew to that end.

Mr. Churchill: While condemning the inhuman system of apartheid, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it cannot be any part of our policy to take steps that would encourage a process leading to bloody revolution in South Africa, but, that on the contrary, it is our policy to redouble our efforts to encourage peaceful evolution there?

The Prime Minister: That is precisely our policy, but the extent of economic sanctions being called for in some parts of the House would add poverty and unemployment to violence and that would increase the violence and make matters a great deal worse, not only for the people of South Africa, but for the front-line states and other countries beyond those in Africa.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: To get back to the home front, will the Prime Minister reflect for a moment on the plight of thousands of young people who have completed their youth training scheme and now find themselves on the

scrap heap? Is she aware that most of those people, particularly in my constituency, have now lost faith in her and in her Government? For God's sake, will she reconsider the position and adopt an attitude that will change her policy, get these young people back to work and give them hope for the future?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, many, many young people on the youth training scheme benefit from it, go on to jobs and find it easier to get jobs because they have taken the youth training scheme. He will also be aware that the number of jobs in Scotland has increased by 50,000 since 1983 and that there have been 15,000 new companies since 1979. That is going the right way to get new jobs for young people and for those who have been on the unemployment register for some time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend, as First Lord of the Treasury, take personally a close look at the financing of the first year of the GCSE, which involves an investment in schools which is not proportionate to the number of children taking the examination? Thereafter it will he, but in the first year an expenditure is needed for which no provision has yet been made and without which the future prospects of the first year's intake of those taking the GCSE will be sacrificed.

The Prime Minister: It is inevitable that we have different arrangements for the first year, because it takes some years to work up to the time when that examination is taken, which, I think, first comes in 1988. However, I shall look at the particular point my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the first 13 questions on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister today are all from Labour Members. From inquiries that I have made, with great discretion, I understand that the Labour party, and, indeed, the Liberal party, are operating some sort of cabal, which would never be considered by Conservative Members. Will you please ensure that if bunches of questions are put in by one hon. Member on behalf of others, they are given a particularly good shuffle?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, he perhaps should know that only 30 Conservative Members put in questions to the Prime Minister today. The more Members who go in for the ballot the better chance of success.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that we can be absolutely clear as to why it is that only 30 Tory Members managed to get their questions down today, you should reflect on the fact that it is Royal Ascot week and it is Gold Cup day today

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Another Labour question. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JuNE—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day) (2nd part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The privatisation of the water authorities". The debate will arise on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.

Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill.
Motion on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order
Motions on the Representation of the People Regulations, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on Estimates relating to special employment measures and the long-term unemployed and the Manpower Services Commission corporate plan 1986–1990. Afterwards there will be a debate on estimates relating to the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency. Details of the Estimates concerned will be given in the Official Report. 
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] and the Land Registration Bill [Lords]
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day), until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The withdrawal of mortgage interest payment protection for the unemployed". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Higher and continuing education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE AND FRIDAY 27 JUNE—Completion of the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
MONDAY 3o JUNE—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986 (Cmnd. 9673) (1st Day).

[Estimates to be debated on Tuesday 24 June 1986:

1. Class VII, vote 3 ( Department of Employment Administration) so far as it concerns special employment measures and the long-term unemployed, and the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan, 1986–90; and

2. Class IX ( Department of the Environment Housing); class X ( Department of the Environment: Other Environmental Services); class XX, vote 18 ("Civil Accommodation, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment"); and that debate on the Estimates. class VII be concluded not later than three hours after its commencement.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I first tell him that it is completely unsatisfactory that the Government put the Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill on after 7 pm on Monday? That Bill is yet another attempt by the Government to interfere with the judicial process. Will the Leader of the House at least see that it is taken as first business on another day of the week?
This week's attempt by the Secretary of State for Defence to slip through the announcement about the delay in privatising the royal ordnance factories was, to say the least, clumsy. Since the Secretary of State yesterday gave a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer to the private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), will the Leader of the House now ensure that we have a full-scale debate in Government time so that the House can fully probe the policy, or lack of policy, which is doing so much damage to confidence and to the future of the ROFs?
I see that the Government are now in such a complete muddle with their business that progress on the remaining stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is to be taken on Friday as well as on Thursday. That is really not satisfactory for legislation that has such serious constitutional implications for this country's relations with the Community; will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that Third Reading will be taken separately, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can fully contest the dangerous provisions of the Bill, which will result in a loss of powers by this Parliament if that legislation is ever enacted?
My colleagues and I decided on a debate on higher education in Opposition time before we knew of the Government's latest foolish decision again to consider introducing student loans. In view of the interest in, and anxiety about, this matter among today's parents and pupils, will the Government give us some of their time so that we can have a more extended debate on that issue?
Finally, last week the Leader of the House conceded a restitution of private Members' time after the truth had come out about the shoddy manoeuvres which led to the loss of business on 6 June. When will that time be reinstated?

Mr. Biffen: I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions in order. I understand the importance that he and, I believe, the House attach to the Second Reading of the Rate Support Grants Bill. However, provided that the Ten o'clock rule is suspended, we may be able to make progress in that context instead of making it the first order of business elsewhere.
I was in my place yesterday and heard the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the private notice question on the royal ordnance factories. I must say that I thought that it was a very persuasive and convincing reply. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman seems interested in the possibility of a further debate on that matter. I can say only that perhaps that is the sort of issue that could profitably be considered through the usual channels.
I again acknowledge the constitutional importance of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I am happy to confirm that Third Reading will be taken separately from the debates planned for Thursday and Friday of next week.
We shall of course look at the possibility of extending the scope and time of the debate on education, but that will have to he considered through the usual channels. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he has shown great prescience in choosing that topic, which has been given added authority by the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I thus hope that the right hon.


Gentleman does not feel too discomfited by it. I am sure that, as the debate proceeds, we will welcome that as a prelude to a general election.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the restoration of private Members' time. That is something that we will reasonably consider through the usual channels.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern from both sides of the House about certain aspects of the defence procurement programme? While I acknowledge that there will be an important debate on the Defence Estimates, will he try to arrange a special day for the House to debate some of the unearthed scandals that lie in that Department?

Mr. Biffen: I heard my hon. Friend's most formidable contribution during Treasury questions earlier this afternoon. That leads me to believe that he is capable of delivering a well-guided missile in the debate on the Defence Estimates. I advise him to take his chance in that debate and I am sure that his contribution will be regarded with much interest.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): Why has there not been a statement this afternoon on the publication of the recommendations of the Widdicombe inquiry? In view of the anxiety on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the future of the telecommunications industry, taking into account the merger bid by GEC and Plessey?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The Liberal party and its associates have a debate next week and could have chosen a number of topics. However, I will not take the small-minded point of political argument and suggest that they have been unwise in their choice. We all understand their difficulties and we try to be charitable on a Thursday afternoon.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Widdicombe report, he would he the first to understand that a constant balancing act is involved to decide what matters shall be the subject of oral statements in the House, as that has a detrimental consequence for other subjects in which hon. Members wish to participate in the prime time of the week. I note his interest in the matter but I cannot offer any prospect of an oral statement on that subject.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Many of my Conservative colleagues noticed with much interest the announcement made an hour or two ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that she is setting up another eminent persons group from within the Cabinet to ensure that the next Government are a Conservative Government and to look ahead to the general election. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use his influence to arrange for that small group to send for papers and people —and for those of us who will not be in the House after the next election but whose experience in the past might help to get common sense into these discussions in the search for votes.

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend has said, a most formidable election-winning combination was announced earlier this afternoon. I understand that he would wish the team to have its skills and experience augmented by departing friends. I will certainly look into that matter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen the 12 early-day motions that I tabled this week? They are early-day motions 956 to 960 and 966 to 972.

[That this House condemns the arrests of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders, in South Africa under the State of Emergency declared on 12th June; believes that this attack, the worst on the unions in 20 years, constitutes an attempt by the Botha Government to set the clock back by halting the development, in particular of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) which led a strike of 1½ million workers on May Day and played a key role in organising an even bigger stoppage on 16th June in support of the demands of black youth for nonracial education, and to end the ban on the Congress of South African Students, for democratic rights, and to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre in 1976; recognises that the state of emergency, and the failure of Her Majesty's Goverment to take any concrete action to oppose the Botha Government's repression, shows that British, South African and international big business are at one in their desire to crush the movement of workers and youth in South Africa, so as to protect capitalism and the profits derived from the apartheid cheap-labour system; and supports the working class movement imposing its own sanctions, through industrial action, to suspend trade with South Africa until the state of emergency is lifted and all detainees are released.]

[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of 12th June, including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by the COSATU, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of: J. Vilane, Vice-President, Metal and Allied Workers' Union (MAWU), W. Mchunu, Northern Natal Branch Secretary, (MAWU), J. Ntnombela, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Regional Chairman, Natal and the President of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU), Tom Mkhwanazi, Organiser, Sweet, Food and Allied Workers' Union SFAWU), Natal, V. Mehona, Shop Steward, SFAWU, M. Olifant, COSATU Regional Secretary, Natal, A. Bird, Education Secretary, MAWN, V. Mavu, Industrial Organiser, Chemical Workers' Industrial Union (CW11.1), C. Bonner, Transvaal Secretary, CWIU, Sipho Khubeka, Transvaal Secretary, Paper, Wood and Allied Workers' Unions, and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency on 12th June, including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by the COSAN, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of Valley, education officer, Commercial Catering and Allied Workers' Union (CCAWUSA), C. Khumalo, COSATU regional secretary, Pretoria, S. Ramakobye, organiser, National Automobile and Allied Workers' Union (NAAWU), V. Mohakwe, organiser, WU Pretoria, L. Mamabola, shop stewards, at Robert Bosh, MAMU, Jo Mogakwe, member MAWU, Pretoria, P. Jaantjigs, Cape


Secretary, MAWU, R. Peterson, organiser, SFAWU, Bloemfontein, Q. Maroeletsi, organiser, CCAWUSA, Bloemfontein, and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of 12th June including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in the country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by Confederation of South African Trade Unions, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release of S. Mknwanazi, shop steward, National Union of Textile Workers ( NUTW), Harrismith, P. Mapnalala, shop steward, NUTW, Harrismith, A. Nyati, shop steward, NUTW, Harrismith, R. Mnculwane, organiser, CCAWUSA, Harrismith, F. Mazibuko, shop steward, CCAWUSA, Harrismith, M. Cindi, shop steward CCAWUSA, Harrismith, N. Williams, COSATU, regional vice-chairman, Western Cape, N. Marawu, organiser, General Workers Union, Western Cape, R. Lazarus, organiser, TGWU, Western Cape, A. Mentoor, organiser, Food and Canning Workers Union (FCWU), Western Cape and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the state crackdown of the South African state of emergency of June 12th including the biggest assault on the democratic trade unions in that country for 20 years, as the bankrupt response of the apartheid regime to the call by COSAN, the youth organisations, and the United Democratic Front, for a one-day national general strike to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Soweto massacre; and calls for the release: N. MacDonald, organiser, FCWU, Western Cape, W. Zweni, shop steward, FCWU, Western Cape, D. Neer, organiser, Motor Assembly and Component Workers' Union, (MACWUSA), Port Elizabeth, Duce, Organiser MACWUSA, Port Elizabeth, Lentor, shop steward, FCWU, For Beaufort, P. Pheko, organiser, MAWU, Benoni, J. Pathe, co-ordinator, National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and all other detainees.]

[That this House congratulates the millions of black workers who on 16th June participated in the biggest national strike in South Africa's history; condemns the state crackdown on 12th June as the most serious assault on the democratic trade unions for 20 years; and calls for the immediate release of key members of the Council of Unions of South Africa, (membership 150,000) including: Prioshaw Camay, general secretary, James Mdaweni, president, Mahlomola Skosana, assistant general secretary, Dale Tiffin, head of women's unit, Joyce Sebe, regional organiser, and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the state of emergency declared on 12th June in South Africa and the arrest of 3,000 youths and workers including key trade union leaders: and calls for the release of D. Hartford, COSATU editor, J. Mthimba, MAWU member, B. Modisapodi, MAWU member, V. Ramakobe, NAAWU shop steward, Firestone, V. Mohakwe, NAAWU organiser, Pretoria, V. Mavusi, CWIU member, Maruma, NUTW member, Z. Galela, NUTW member, A. Nyati, FCWU shop steward, Harrismith, Duze, MACWU organiser, Port Elizabeth, and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the widespread arrests of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders; and calls for the release of the following members

of the Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union; O. Malgas, organiser, K. Thibedi, organiser, R. Ncumali, organiser, E. Mongale, O. Marentsi, B. Boikanyo, S. Patsa, P. Bekkers, Matsoso, the following members of the Motor Assembly and Components Workers' Union Dennis I, Megiana, the following members of the South African Allied Workers' Union K. Dau, P. Mokpo, J. Masemula, C. Seleke and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the attempted beheading of the leadership of the South African democratic trades unions by the detention of 3,000 youths and workers, including key trade union leaders; and calls for the immediate release of L. Ditshigo, General Workers Union, L. Erasmus, Clothing Workers' Union, M. Tsedu, Chairman, Media Workers' Association of South Africa, Pietersburg, D. Dickson, National Education Union, J. Mthombeza, Chairman, COSATU, Empangeni, MAWU, B. Peterson, MAWU, Johannesburg, P. Dantjie, MAWU, Pretoria, Makhathini, Sarmcol Striker, MAWU, Ho wick, Mbeje, Sarmcol striker, MAWU, Ho wick, and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the arrest of 3,000 youths and workers, under the 12th June state of emergency, where the entire national and regional leadership of the Congress of South African Trade Unions is either in the hands of the notorious security police or in hiding from them; and calls for the immediate release of H. Marawu (TGW organiser, Cape Town); Paul Nkuna ( Regional Chairman, National Union of Mineworkers, Transvaal); J. Phatae ( NUM organiser, Orange Free State); V. Motsamai (shop steward, South African Chemical Workers' Union), K. Dau (National Union of Textile Workers), A. Naythi (shop steward, National Union of Textile Workers, Harrismith), Elisabeth Erasmus ( textile worker) and all other detainees.]

[That this House condemns the arrests, on Sunday 15th June in South Africa, of: Soloman Mauna ( MAWU shop steward, Bosch, Pretoria), Abnas Tilane ( MAWU shop steward, Bosch, Pretoria), Mike Mabuyakhulu ( MAWU, Northern Natal), Blakey Mtshali ( MAWU organiser) and Joseph Miya (MAWU shop steward) as part of the attempts of the Botha Government to behead the leadership of the democratic South Africa trades union; and calls for their immediate release, together with all other 3,000 detainees arrested under the state of emergency.]

[That this House condemns the raids by the South African Security police, operating under the 12th June state of emergency, on the morning of 17th June on the headquarters of the Congress of South African Trades Unions in Johannesburg, and its offices in Port Elizabeth, Jermiston, Durban and Pinetown and on the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers in Johannesburgh; and calls for the immediate release of all those detained.]

These early-day motions detail the 88 key trade union leaders — so far confirmed from sources within and without South Africa—to be arrested over the weekend through raids on the headquarters of the trade union federations and the NUM on Tuesday morning. What further statements will come from the Government in response to these attacks? Will those statements contain an explanation of why the Prime Minister is prepared to become an international pariah in her support for apartheid and explain that that has nothing to do with the so-called threat to the 120,000 jobs in Britain when she has sacked 2 million in the past two years, but everything to do with the £12,000 million worth of investments from


British companies—many of the directors of which sit on the Conservative Benches — which get their profits from the cheap-labour apartheid system?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too dismissive of the consequences for employment in this country of future actions in the South African context. In answer to his specific question, he will appreciate that there was a debate on South Africa this week. In those circumstances the best thing that I can do is to refer his points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Michael Latham: Would not another way of dealing with the real concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) about defence spending be not only in the debate next Monday, but if we debated the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury minutes in response to them? May I say that those debates are long overdue?

Mr. Biffen: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. I hope to announce arrangements in the reasonably near future for a debate of the Public Accounts Committee reports.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich): Will the Leader of the House explain on what authority the Prime Minister, when addressing the House, speaks on behalf of the enslaved people of South Africa? Having been told, as we were by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the Government were in close contact with the African National Congress, would it not be better if the Prime Minister endeavoured to speak on its behalf rather than on behalf of its enemies?

Mr. Biffen: The language chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the policy implications are wholly laudable and understandable. In this difficult position, it is perfectly honourable for hon. Members, in the prosecution of British national policy, to explain that it is also in the interests of those whom they seek to aid in South Africa.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend initiate, through the usual channels, an urgent discussion on hon. Members' interests and how they affect the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill? I am sure that he will agree that it is vital that that Select Committee should consist of hon. Members who are above all suspicion or criticism of bias.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that an unhappy situation may be about to arise as a result of the proposed inclusion in the membership of the Committee of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)? I gave the hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this question. I should like to say at the outset that no criticism of the hon. Gentleman arises. A point of principle is at stake. The Leader of the House may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman has properly declared his interests, which are that he is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, and is sponsored by that union. It has great interests of its own, which are affected by the Bill. Secondly, he is the joint chairman of the all-party Channel tunnel group, which has been funded and provided with travel services by the Eurotunnel consortium. Those facts have been properly registered.
My question is this. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions to see. on a point of principle, whether any

hon. Member so closely linked with the Eurotunnel consortium should sit on a Select Committee that will hear petitions or points on amendments sought to the Bill, which are likely to be the opposite of the interests of the Eurotunnel consortium?

Mr. Biffen: I have no wish to play down the scope and omniscience of wisdom of the usual channels, hut, frankly, I do not believe that the question that has been raised is appropriate for them. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will act in this matter as he has acted in all parliamentary matters, with total propriety. If there are any questions about the membership of those Committees, they should he directed to the Chair.

Mr. Peter Shore: On the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I note what the Leader of the House said in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there would be further time for the Third Reading of the Bill, but in view of the constitutional importance of the measure, which undoubtedly will lead to the further dimunition of the powers of this Parliament and to the enhancement of the powers of the European institutions, does he really think that it is right for that Bill to be pushed through to completion of all its stages other than Third Reading in a single day plus a Friday at the end of next week?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the one-day debate earlier this week, only one group of amendments was taken, on a matter which, although of some importance, was by no means the heart of the matter raised by the Bill? Is he further aware that the other amendments, of which there are at least another seven groups, raised matters of the utmost importance to the economic, social and constitutional position of this country and, indeed, of successive Governments in it? Will the Leader of the House think again about the time available for the Committee stage of' that most important Bill?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I do not deny, in any sense, the significance of the Bill. Although the size of the Bill is modest, its implications are wide-ranging. It will be a doubtful day when the House accepts that, somehow or other, Friday is a second-class day in our affairs.

Mr. Shore: It is shorter.

Mr. Biffen: It is a day which is recognised as being available for Government business, and I suggest we see what progress we make.

Mr. Peter Snape: May I say, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), of which he was kind enough to notify me before this exchange, that I am co-chairman of the organisation to which he referred. I have no personal knowledge of any funds being paid by any member of the Eurotunnel consortium to the all-party Channel tunnel group. I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a member of the NUR. I have made a number of statements., inside and outside the House, in favour of the Eurotunnel scheme.
I have taken advice from the Private Bill Office on the matter. Surely it is the responsibility of the Committee to study the Bill and to take note of the representations made by petitioners but not to debate the principles of the scheme? The hon. Member for Thanet, South has acted


properly in this matter, but I find it unpleasant that the campaign which is being waged by the ferry companies should be waged in this personalised way to imply that, because of my oft-expressed views, I am in some way prejudiced against their somewhat partial views.

Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I do not think that this is a matter appropriate for the usual channels, but I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend noted that, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 30 June, the Opposition have chosen to debate devolution? Does he find it strange that the Opposition have not found a day out of their time on the Floor of the House to debate the subject? Does my right hon. Friend think that if the Opposition did use a day at Westminster to debate devolution, it would show that the party was split from top to bottom.

Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to offer any fraternal guidance to the Opposition Front Bench about what it chooses to debate and where. I think I speak for everyone on this side of the House when I say that we should love the Labour party to come to the Chamber and announce a reinforced commitment to devolution both for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Tuesday, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, announced a most important decision: that the Dornoch firth rail bridge would not be constructed? At the time, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), said that he had nothing to add. Since then, he and his colleagues at the Scottish Office, in a frantic effort at press briefing, have issued contradictory statements on whether or not the Government have sought, or are willing to seek, aid for this project from the European Community.
As the statements are contradictory and have been published in a leading Scottish newspaper, will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House to make plain the Government's view of the project's eligibility for aid from the European Community and state whether or not they are prepared to take a longer-term strategic view of the importance of this project for Scotland?

Mr. Biffen: We all understand that this has been a rather fragile week for social democracy. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair —more than a little; being downright unfair—to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office. As I understand it, British Rail has to take an initiatory position on this deal before it can go to the financing authorities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I will, of course, refer his points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants and the need for them to be politically impartial? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a leading civil servant in the Department of Health and Social Security office in Leicester, Tony Church, is a public member of Militant.

He is campaigning strongly to get Militant members elected to the Civil and Public Services Association who oppose the views of Alistair Graham. Does my right Friend agree that that is a strange situation? Surely civil servants owe a loyalty to the Crown? How can political office bearers, who do not believe in the Crown or in democracy, be allowed to stand?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has pursued this point with great skill, not only this afternoon but on previous occasions. I like to think that there can be few civil servants in Leicester who do not realise the full significance of the election before them.

Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Leader of the House recall that, some weeks ago, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), accused the producers of the BBC "Panorama" programme on ionising regulations called "How Safe is Safe?" of being wrong in every critical respect, and in so doing implicated me in those accusations? Some weeks later the Minister published what he called a briefing to every hon. Member. Since then I have published a point-by-point rebuttal of his briefing which is supported by three globally eminent experts in these affairs, and have sent a copy to the Minister, asking him if he will agree to give it a similar circulation to that of his briefing. Obviously, I would understand if he were unwilling to contribute to his own embarrassment by such action.
Will the Leader of the House undertake to prevail on the Minister to come to the House and make a statement, so that we may question him on these matters and ask him whether he now understands them more readily? Or is the Leader of the House prepared to perpetuate the ministerial obfuscation of these matters?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that charge could never be brought against my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). The most profitable way to proceed is probably to see what happens from the mutual correspondence that is taking place, and in the light of that, perhaps, to consider any other action.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Although none of the four Opposition Leeds Members have been present this afternoon, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is grave concern in Leeds about the potential decisions on the royal ordnance factory, and that there is a case for having a debate, so that the appropriate Ministers can come to the House to answer the charge that the bureaucracies of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry have, in a sense, conspired to change the decision of the House about how the ROFs could be privatised? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a sad day in a city such as Leeds if another tank company could buy a loss-making operation cheaply only to close it? That does no good for jobs in the city or for competitive bidding in the defence industries.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a fair parliamentarian, and I know that he would be anxious that I should point out that yesterday, when the private notice question was considered in the House—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was missing.

Dr. Hampson: I was present. I had the first question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Biffen: A number of Leeds Members were present. The points of far greater substance raised by my hon. Friend could be appropriate to the debate on the motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates — obviously, subject to the judgment of the Chair. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his points then.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Will the Leader of the House consider the claim of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) about adherence to the Crown? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grave constitutional issues mentioned in relation to the European business for Thursday and Friday raise that point? Is it not the case that the solemn statement on European union at Stuttgart in 1983 is contained in the articles of the Single European Act? Since the European Communities (Amendment) Bill seeks to endorse that treaty, is it not a fact that, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, the British Parliament and the Crown will he subservient to the terms of the said solemn treaty? Will the Leader of the House reflect on that and give greater time for this important Bill?

Mr. Biffen: Nobody doubts the significance of the debates that will take place on Thursday and Friday, and I must point out that those two days provide a reasonable amount of time for the consideration of the issues involved.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the Government find time to debate the report published yesterday by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Lawrence Byford, in which he blames much of the violence in today's society on a lack of discipline in the home and at school, together with video porn, violence and sadism and television advertising?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to that point.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the report of the Select Committee on Employment, published this week, which makes far-reaching recommendations for the alleviation of long-term unemployment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this all-party Committee, which has a Conservative majority, made these recommendations after careful consideration and that it is absolutely disgraceful that the Government should turn them down without proper consideration? Is it not time that we had a debate on long-term unemployment, not least because it is growing? In parts of my constituency, unemployment is as high as nearly 40 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: On reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman may well judge that the Government's reaction was prudent, measured and wholly justified.

Mr. Janner: No, I do not.

Mr. Biffen: I did not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman completely to agree first time round, but I draw his attention to the opportunity that he will have to make a speech about unemployment during the Estimates Day debate on 24 June. If he comes to the House and listens to the Government spokesman, I hope that at the end of his speech he will be convinced.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister with responsibility

for sport to send a message to the English football supporters in Mexico asking them to show good behaviour and sportsmanship in the game against Argentina next Sunday? Will he also ask him to send a message of good luck to the English team in its bid to win the World Cup?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there will be unanimity on this high point of political, social, economic and cultural judgment that the House is expressing this afternoon, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Mr. Ron Brown: As the Government are still committed to the reduction of public expenditure, especially to the reduction of benefits for students, pensioners and the working class in general. will the Leader of the House ensure that the appropriate Minister is brought to the House to explain why Andrew and Sarah cannot pay for their royal wedding, because this issue is being discussed up and down the country?

Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, public expenditure is rising. Since, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is so misconceived about the premise, I think that I am disembarrassed from making any comments upon his conclusion.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: First, may I correct the incorrect allegation that was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) a few moments ago, when he said that no other Member of Parliament for Leeds had been in the House this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was not only here but asked Question 13. We have to assume that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West was not here then as, indeed, it has to be noted, he is not here now.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that 150 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 837, which stands in my name.

[That this House notes the justifiable sense of frustration and anger expressed at the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters' Conference in Bournemouth at the Post Office's use of coercion to force through an inequitable pay award for 1985 for sub-postmasters; calls on the Post Office to recognise that sub-postmasters are the only sector of the Post Office who invest their own money, frequently their life's savings, in order to ensure that the Post Office serves its customers effectively; believes that the Post Office's policy has weakened the tenuous economic viability of many sub-post offices and endangered the network; recognises that sub-postmasters have given loyal and exceptional service to the Post Office and the public, which should be recognised and not taken advantage of; and calls on the Post Office to understand the damage it is doing, to mend its ways and to deal with sub-postmasters more on the basis of cooperation and the force of argument, rather than confrontation and the arguments of force in relation to this crucial component of community life.]

Also, hon. Members from all parties have signed early-day motion, 926, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam).

[That this House, recognising the valuable role played in the community by sub-postmasters, calls on the Post Office to revise its policy towards sub-postmasters and through cooperation and support so improve their pay and conditions that the economic viability of the sub-post office network will be assured for the fitturel


They express concern about the attitude of the Post Office to the sub-post office network and about the damage that is being done to that essential network. Will the Leader of the House take account of this considerable number of hon. Members from all parties who have expressed their concern and, if at all possible, provide time for a debate on the matter before the summer recess?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman touches upon a point that arouses very deep feelings, particularly in the rural constituencies. I cannot give the undertaking that he seeks, but I shall certainly consider the matter further.

Channel Tunnel (Select Committee)

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a point that has arisen out of the exchanges on business questions? I understood my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say that he did not feel it was a matter for him whether or not there should be any discussion about the fact that an hon. Member who had been co-chairman of a committee funded by a business interest should now be a member of a Select Committee that is listening to petitions which relate to that business interest. I think that my point was clear enough from the exchanges.
I was somewhat surprised by the reply of my right hon. Friend, because his office had guided me earlier by saying that this was likely to be a matter for him rather than a matter for you. However, as I received that reply from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, may I turn to you, Mr. Speaker, and ask this question? Clearly a genuine point of principle about Members' interests and how they should affect membership of Select Committees arises in this instance. To whom may I turn to obtain some kind of ruling in as neutral and friendly a way as possible?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House occasionally comes to my rescue, and I very nearly came to his rescue earlier. Since the hon. Gentleman has now raised that point with me, I can tell him that the House has entrusted the nomination of this Committee to the Committee of Selection, and I have no power to interfere. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the rule about the declaration of interests applies in Select Committees as it does in the House.

British Gas

Mr. Alan Williams: On a completely separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have received a request from the Secretary of State for Energy about making a statement to the House on British Gas? If not, as I assume is the case, may I draw your attention to the penultimate page of the Official Report for 18 June? It contains an 80-line written answer from the Secretary of State for Energy dealing with issues such as the debt and equity position of British Gas and the debt element in its balance sheet, the future of the gas levy when British Gas has been privatised, the price regulatory formula that will be the only defence for the consumer against this private monopoly, and its intentions regarding the holding of shares by British Gas employees. I am sure that you will agree that all these matters merit discussion and questions in the House.
As for the price formula, the Secretary of State said that it was only after careful examination that he had arrived at this particular regulatory formula. As we were unable to debate these matters during proceedings on the Bill, it seems appropriate that, at the very least, we should have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State, now that he has made up his mind. If the Secretary of State has not said that he wishes to make a statement to the House, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House to ensure that a statement is made as quickly as possible about British Gas?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): We could look at that matter through the usual channels.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH COUNCIL AND COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE SUPERANNUATION

Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, supported by Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to enable schemes to be made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in respect of persons who are serving or have previously served in employment with the British Council or the Commonwealth Institute: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved. 
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved. 
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we discuss these two orders together.

Mr. Speaker: Will it be for the convenience of the House to discuss these orders together?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State appeared to be moving the approval of both orders. I take it that the position is that the two orders may be debated together but that a separate Question will have to be put in due course in regard to the second order.

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely correct, but is it the wish of the House that these two orders be debated together?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. King: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I confirm my understanding of the point that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has made.
The draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986 relates to the dissolution of the existing Assembly. I emphasise "the existing Assembly". This Assembly would in any case reach the end of its normal life on 20 October. I made a statement to the House last week in which I set out our decision on this matter and our proposal to bring forward this order today. In that statement I sought to make clear the background to our decision.
The Assembly effectively has two central functions. The first is to consider and report on how a devolved Northern Ireland Administration could be formed. The second is a scrutiny role in relation to the Northern Ireland departments. For the reasons that we rehearsed last week, it has not been possible to achieve the first of those functions. In respect of the second — the scrutiny function, which started well and which was proving to he a valuable instrument in the administration of the Province—it is interesting to note that, in the case of the recommendations from the various Scrutiny Committees that we established to monitor the work of Northern Ireland departments, the latest information I have is that 75 per cent. of the Committee recommendations have been accepted in respect of draft orders and comments on them.
Unfortunately, that useful work was suspended by the decision of the Members themselves in December and was then formally abandoned in March. The Assembly was charged with two central functions but for some months it has been discharging neither. As long ago as last December I warned that if the Assembly did not discharge its proper functions it would put its continuance at risk. I have since reinforced that warning and did so twice in May. As there was no change in the situation. I subsequently invited the leaders of the main Unionist


parties to come and discuss the position of the present Assembly. As the House knows, they refused to do even that

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that all those admirable functions that were performed by Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly could well be performed by appropriate Committees of this House?

Mr. King: The advantage was that the functions were being performed by people with a more intimate and closer knowledge of circumstances in Northern Ireland. I respect the great knowledge of the Province and the history of the whole of Ireland that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has, but I should be very surprised if he were to maintain, or if anyone were to pretend, that hon. Members of this House who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies could claim to do the detailed scrutiny work as effectively as those whose homes are in the Province.
The leaders of the main Unionist parties were not even prepared to discuss the position with us. I hope that the House will accept that I gave the Unionist leaders in the Assembly every opportunity to resume their proper functions so that the Assembly would be able to continue. I regret to say that it is because of their failure to discharge their proper functions, and obviously because, not least, some quite serious questions could be asked about the application of public funds to a body set up to carry out certain functions under an Act of Parliament when those funds are not being used for that purpose, that the present action is being taken.
I should like to make it clear that the disgraceful and childish antics in which some Members of the Assembly, and especially the members of the DUP, indulged more recently of occupying a telephone exchange and requiring eviction by the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not enter into my considerations. I was concerned solely to see that the Assembly discharged the functions for which it was set up.
If this order were not made, automatically there would be fresh elections to the Assembly after the dissolution on 20 October. The order does not abolish the legal basis for the Assembly. It simply abolishes the present Assembly which, allowing for the normal recess that it might have taken, would have had only about another month or six weeks of normal sitting days.
The order dissolves the present Assembly and leaves open the date of elections to a new Assembly. It is important to make that point because of some of the exaggerated comments by some spokesmen in the Northern Ireland parties. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who complained that all platforms were denied to him. I have described the hon. Member by his proper title. He is a Member of this House, and as such he has access to the most important forum in the United Kingdom. He makes little use of it, and so he cannot say that he is denied the opportunity of expressing in a democratic forum comments on behalf of the people that he represents.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In the event of the Assembly being reassembled for whatever reasons, and assuming that that came after round-table talks,

would the Assembly have to operate as is presently conceived in the legislation, or could the legislation be amended according to what came out of those talks?

Mr. King: I shall say something shortly about how I see the future of the Assembly and the way forward.
I should like to deal with the allegation that somehow the Government are trying to suppress free speech or free comment or democratic expression. When I look at the situation that has developed in the local councils in Northern Ireland, at the situation in the Assembly and at the empty Benches in this House, I note that it is not decisions of the Government that have brought any of those circumstances about. They were brought about by the decisions of people in the Assembly or in the councils or by those who were elected to this Parliament. I regret their refusal to discuss the problems with Ministers. They loudly complain about people's refusal to listen, while at the same time they refuse to talk or to take any part in discussions. The inconsistency of that position will be apparent to all hon. Members.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that there is a great difference between the situations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but does the Minister recognise that they seem to have one thing in common? I refer to the Government's attitude to the governing of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The wishes of the representatives of the majority of people in Northern Ireland about the arrangements that are made are not given effect in this House. They wish to have more discussed here. Similarly, the representatives of the majority in Scotland wish to have devolved government and the Government are setting their face against that. Does the Minister not see anything curious about this? Why is he so unresponsive to the views of the majority of elected Members from Scotland and Northern Ireland about the way their countries should be governed?

Mr. King: I cannot deny that I see many things that are curious in both situations. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because I want to talk about alternative approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised is important.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: rose—

Mr. King: I should like to complete the point and then I shall give way.
We look forward to the creation of a new Assembly on an acceptable basis, but the charge that the Government sought to bring about the dissolution, or that we have been unreasonable or not willing to talk, simply cannot be sustained. I hope that it is now understood in Northern Ireland that I am more than ready to listen to people's points of view and to talk to anybody who wishes to have discussions about a constructive way forward. I shall say more about that later.
If the dissolution of the Assembly is approved by the House, and that decision is confirmed by the Privy Council, there will then be a period during which I shall be anxious to see that as far as possible we can maintain effective methods of consultation. One of the arrangements that operated in the Assembly was that draft instruments or draft orders were issued for consultation and the Assembly was invited to give its views. I propose to continue the practice of sending to the party leaders in


Northern Ireland and to interested hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in the House any such documents that come forward so that they can continue to he informed about matters. We shall, of course, be willing to receive any of their comments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that before 1982, when the practice that he has just described prevailed. there were frequent consultations between Northern Ireland Members and Ministers? Those often resulted in substantial and desirable modifications of the orders that were eventually brought before the House. There is no reason why that procedure should not be fruitful.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down for his remarks and I hope that he speaks for others as well as for himself.

Mr. Mallon: I wanted to intervene earlier to ask the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) whether he was enunciating his party's policy when he spoke about majority rule.

Mr. King: It will be a fascinating argument when it starts. I am sure that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will enjoy it.

Mr. Ian Gow: Could my right hon. Friend address himself to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the spokesman for the SDI'? Does my right hon. Friend recall the year 1978, when he and I voted in favour of the proposition that, before Scotland and Wales were governed differently from the way in which they had been governed before, there should be a referendum in both countries to test whether that which was acceptable to the House was acceptable to a majority in Scotland and in Wales? Why, if he and I were correct to insist on a referendum then, are we not correct to ask for a referendum in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows the answer before I give it. It is that Northern Ireland is not being governed differently from the way in which it was governed before. I know that my hon. Friend is referring to the Anglo-Irish agreement, and the government of the Province is no different after that agreement. He will recall, as he knows it word for word and I would not presume to tell him anything about it, that the agreement brings no change in the sovereignty of the House and the Government's responsibility for Northern Ireland. That is the essential difference between this case and that about which he was talking.
It was suggested that we should simply not have the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order at all, and merely allow the order to lapse, and that its non-renewal was a possible course to take. I put that on record, because I know that it is a matter in which many hon. Members have taken a close interest. I leave aside for the moment the political background and implications of such a decision. I hope that it is understood, now that discussions have taken place, that, quite apart from the political considerations, the technical problems would make it impossible simply not to renew the order. That would lead to major problems for the House and to major gaps in the executive authority and powers in the Province, which would severely hamper administration.
Successive Secretaries of State have come to the House seeking the renewal of the order, and each has said that he hoped that this would not have to he repeated much more often. The basis on which we might forgo renewal does not exist, and, on both the technical and practical considerations, it is necessary to invite the House to renew the direct rule powers contained in the order.
The background both to the decision about the dissolution of the Assembly and that about the interim period extension order shows that this is an appropriate time to take stock of the situation in the Province, and for the Government to make clear their views on the best way forward. There has been more intensive debate in the Province in recent months. One of the consequences flowing from the Anglo-Irish agreement is that it has stimulated a more intensive debate in the Province about what the right way forward should be, and, particularly in Unionist circles, a reconsideration of the position and objectives. It is clear that there is no going back, and that this is the best way forward.
I move on to the approaches to the situation in Northern Ireland that are being debated, my impressions of them and the Government's view on them. The approaches are integration, devolution and even independence, all of which have had their advocates in this debate. I shall deal first with integration. The Government do not support, and would not be prepared to suggest. integration as a policy for Northern Ireland. To suggest that there is no difference between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom is to ignore completely the background of different histories, traditions, community attitudes and political parties. These differences have evolved over centuries, and cannot simply be discussed as minor variations that can be cast aside in a uniform Westminster package. There are fundamental objections, without even adding to them the massive problems of reconciliation of legislation and the whole issue of local councils and how they can operate in ways that protect their electors from discrimination.
The slogan used now to advocate integration is "equal citizenship". The implication is that different treatment of legislation implies less citizenship. Yet we know — and this is the point to which the hon. Member for Sutherland and Caithness referred—that there are differences in the way in which we handle Scottish and Welsh matters, while all remaining equal citizens under the Crown. Total integration is unacceptable, not only to the Government but to the House, and the vast majority of people in the Province, both Unionist and Nationalist. They wish to see more control over their own affairs exercised within the Province. I make it clear that integration is simply not on.
In saying that, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said which was that the Government are certainly willing to look at ways in which Northern Ireland business is handled in the House and to see whether there are ways in which this could be improved. I recognise that there are points to be discussed over the ways in which legislation and other matters are treated. I confirm that we are ready to consider any constructive suggestion. However, I add that this willingness to look at reasonable changes in our present practices should not mislead anyone to believe that this could somehow lead to the stale of integration that some hon. Members expound.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right to say that this matter has been discussed


in great detail. Will he make clear the Government's position? Is he saying that the acknowledged differences between the various dependent parts of the United Kingdom—that is, the differences between the English and the Welsh, and the English and the Scottish—are differences of degree, but that the differences between the English and the Welsh and the Northern Irish are differences of kind? If he is drawing that distinction, I am afraid that I do not understand it.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows that there are differences, whether of degree or of kind — whatever word he chooses, we would need to debate at substantial length. I would not want to mislead my hon. Friend because I am not fully seized of his point. There are different practices, traditions and realities in Northern Ireland. We recognise the differences between the communities and their aspirations, and the different legislation in Norther Ireland. I leave aside one of the key differences—that the major political parties representing in the House every other part of the United Kingdom do not operate within Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend knows.
Because of the debate that has taken place, I thought it was my responsibility to the House to make clear the Government's position. It would be wrong if encouragement were given to the view that the Government might be prepared to entertain certain alternatives. I hope hon. Members will accept that I have been willing to listen to any points that they wished to make and not to reject them from a doctrinaire point of view. I have been willing to consider ways in which we could help reconcile some of the problems and attitudes. In my statement I have sought to set out what I believe to be possible, but also what I believe is not possible and where I think there is scope to proceed.

Mr. Julian Amery: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has come out so strongly against the possibility of integration. That is his business and he is free to do it. May I correct him on one point? He said that the political parties in this country have not operated in the Province. The Unionist party in the North of Ireland was closely and integrally affiliated with the Conservative party until he and some of his predecessors brought about the present stress.

Mr. King: There is something in what my right hon. Friend says, but he also knows that the background of the traditions and political loyalties in the Province is not the same as the basis of political loyalties in the rest of the United Kingdom. He will accept equally the validity of that point.

Sir John Farr: rose—

Mr. King: I do not want to take up too much time because we have other orders to debate. My hon. Friend will accept that I have given way on several occasions.
I want to set out the way in which the Government wish to proceed. The Government want to see devolved government in the Province on a basis that commands widespread acceptance. We want a basis on which elected people from the Province can again have a real say in its administration. [Interruption.] I heard the groan from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), but history is not encouraging. That is an easy

and obvious point to make. If my right hon. Friend were plugged into the debate that is taking place in Northern Ireland he would know that recent events have concentrated people's minds in a different way on the best way forward.
In the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement I recall the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) saying that if he had known that he would have to face the Anglo-Irish agreement he would have considered seriously sitting down with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to see whether they could reach agreement, as residents representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. Many such remarks have encouraged me to believe that more and more people realise the importance of making a real effort this time to find agreement.
We now need to start talking, not necessarily in a great formal gathering or in an official meeting. We must start the process of understanding better each other's point of view. Sooner or later there must be talks, and the sooner the better. I may have the wrong impression, but I think that at last people in the Province appreciate that I am prepared to listen to constructive arguments, that my door is genuinely open and that, as somebody who believes both in the value of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom and in the clear rights of the majority in that respect, as well as in the rights of the minority to equal and fair treatment in the Province as part of the United Kingdom, my concern is to see the present log jam broken and a new start made. Nobody who cares about Northern Ireland can want the present sterile and pointless campaign to continue because its main casualty is the good name of Northern Ireland and the interests of all its people.

Sir John Farr: I was anxious that my right hon. Friend should give way. He is on a very important point and he has stressed how anxious he is to hear differing views. Can he tell the House what opinion he tapped, or what sources of information in Northern Ireland he approached, to enable him to come to the conclusive view that he has put, as representing the Government's view? No doubt it is the result of the local soundings that he has taken. Can he elaborate on that point because it is important that we should know from which sources he has been getting this advice?

Mr. King: I have talked to a wide range of people, some of whom might not wish to be identified because of the intimidation that undoubtedly exists in many quarters in Northern Ireland. Many brave people who care about the future of the Province wish to ensure that their views are known and that their best hopes are understood by the Government. I have talked also to Church leaders and to many others. I have sought to talk to as wide a range as I can of Unionists and Nationalists across the Province as a whole. It is against that background that I have formed my views.
I do not wish to be discourteous in not always giving way. This is the beginning of the debate and no doubt hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be interested to hear their views. I am sorry that I did not give way earlier to my hon. Friend.
In finding the way forward there must be a start to talks. My pledge is that I am ready now to enter into talks in whatever form is convenient, without pre-conditions


and, if desired, outside any involvement with the Anglo-Irish agreement. I make that offer now. There must be talks. They must start sooner or later, but in whatever form I set no pre-conditions on them. That must be the way to start. I hope that at last others can respond to see whether we can find a basis on which a happier future for the Province can be laid.

Mr. Peter Archer: I begin by agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that the Assembly in its recent phase was simply a channel for the abuse of public funds that would have been better spent in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps I go further than he does. Last week when I said that was pronouncing the obsequies on the Assembly he took me to task. He said, as he reminded us today, that the proposal was merely to dissolve the Assembly, so that if at any future time it was required it could be brought out of store. So we are not pronouncing the obsequies; we are attending a farewell party.
If there comes a time when all the parties decide that they want to discuss the exercise of power in Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland, I suspect that it may be better to provide a different instrument, if only to avoid casting a cloud over the proceedings by reminding them of former unhappy times—those through which we are now passing.
For the moment, another institution is laid to rest and, with it, the hopes which were once invested in it. It would be remiss of us to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to those who tried to make it work. Let us record a tribute to the Speaker of the Assembly, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and his staff. It was not neglect on their part which led to the present circumstances. They tried, and they deserve better. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there remain as memorials to the Assembly some thoughtful, well-researched and locally based reports which, in better times, will serve as guides to policy. They demonstrate that politicians who disagree profoundly about many issues may find a basis for co-operation on the practical questions which affect the welfare of their constituents.
Where then is there left to go, bearing in mind that it would have been better if we were not starting from here? Let us begin with what we already have. The Government are inviting the House to renew the arrangements for the interim period. Whatever our respective preferred solutions, we are probably agreed that, for the moment, there is no alternative to continuing direct rule —certainly, some kind of direct rule and, as of now, the 1974 Act. Unhappily, we are also probably agreed that the only argument to be urged in its favour is that there is no agreement on an alternative.
No one who was asked to design a method of government for a free people would have come up with the first schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Decisions which are of vital concern to the people of Northern Ireland are taken by a Government—I do not mean just the present Government; any Government—in London who do not depend for their support on the electors of Northern Ireland, whose candidates have not sought election there, and who have little to gain from satisfying the electors and little to fear from their displeasure. It is the negation of representative government. I believe that we are all agreed on that.
If those inevitable dire consequences are magnified by the Government's business managers seeking to legislate for whole areas of activity by bringing on unamendable orders at impossible hours of the night, it is small wonder that the anxieties and hopes of the people of Northern Ireland are not reflected in the instruments which issue from the Westminster Parliament.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman stated his willingness to discuss the problems of legislation in the House. The official Opposition are willing to participate in those discussions. Indeed, we have suggested them for a long time. We believe that they could do something to improve the decisions which, in Northern Ireland, vitally affect the quality of everyday life.
I believe that the time has come to hold those discussions. I hope that they will be attended by all the parties represented in the House. Any party could attend without renouncing its position on any other issue. Attendance would not entail any concession or treachery to any cherished opinion. It would not even entail a commitment to future discussions. If we found that we enjoyed the experience of talking together, it might become a habit, and that would be another option.
If any party declined to commit itself, even to the adventure of talks about parliamentary procedure, and chose to absent itself from those discussions, I do not believe that that should constitute a veto over their being held, nor on implementing any agreement to which they might lead. Abstentionism is the right of those who choose to practise it. It is not a denial of the rights of other people. That is something which could be done. It could begin now. I recognise that that is a limited proposal. If we are agreed about the need, for the moment, to make the best of direct rule, I believe that we are also agreed that that is only the first step in a long journey.
The problem about the way forward is not a shortage of ideas for constitutional innovations. The debate is not about constitutional devices. The issue is not whether one constitutional arrangement is better than another. People from two traditions have been brought, by history, into a position where they inhabit one territory. There is no geographical boundary line which could separate them. There is no re-partition which would leave the two peoples on opposite sides of the line. Their home is a home which they are compelled to share. The only question is whether they can live together in peace or whether they are condemned for ever to regard each other as enemies. That is not a constitutional question.
There is no shortage of constitutional devices by which two groups, inhabiting a single territory, can jointly take decisions on how to administer their affairs. Those making virtually any proposal in that context can point to an instance in the history and geography of mankind where it has already been tried and has worked. Whatever is lacking, it is not constitutional ingenuity. The question is not whether some different constitutional plant could grow and flourish. The question is, what is it about the soil which causes every plant to wither?
Like the Secretary of State, my visits to Northern Ireland are not always confined to the corridors of power. I go to places which would surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— [Interruption] I promise that I shall riot elaborate. Sometimes I meet not just politicians and community leaders but those who would describe themselves as ordinary people. All the people I meet tell me that their greatest yearning is to live in peace. They do


not want to have to look over their shoulders every time they go to an unfamiliar part of town. They do not want to have to bite their nails every time their children come home a few minutes late. Yet, collectively, they seem to be condemned to perpetual confrontation. If there is to be peace, it cannot be imposed by people from London or Dublin. It is a search which can be conducted only by the people of Northern Ireland. It cannot be achieved by asking who will win and who will lose. It will not represent anyone's ideal solution. Peace has a price, and it is a price to which everyone must contribute. Nothing is more idle than wanting to live in a peaceful world while we continue, individually, to be quarrelsome.
I believe that there are some ways in which this House can help in the quest for peace. There are ways in which the Republic can help. We could begin by asking whether it is possible to create a climate more conducive to consensus. What is the reason why, in Northern Ireland, one issue seems to drive all the other questions off the agenda—questions which most of us would see as more pressing? It is not that the questions which are the subject of political debate elsewhere do not arise in Northern Ireland. It is not that the economy is so flourishing that it does not require attention. It is not that the public services and the community amenities are operating so successfully that people are free to look for other things to argue about. The reverse is the case.
People who have been denied jobs, or whose jobs are so badly paid that they cannot give their families a decent life, may be tempted to look for scapegoats on which to vent their frustration. If there are not enough jobs to go round, they see their neighbours as rivals. It is harder to be generous on a falling market. I believe that we can demonstrate the advantages of co-operation in economic matters. That is why I call continually on the Secretary of State to tell us whether the Intergovernmental Conference is discussing those questions, and when he will be able to point to some results.
When the Anglo-Irish agreement was concluded, the Opposition said that it should be given a chance, because we believed that it could be the framework for discussion between the British Government and the Government of the Republic, that it could lead to action which would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland and would manifestly be seen to benefit them.
We do not believe that it is possible to argue that the Republic has no interest in what happens in Northern Ireland, and that what people do on one side of the border is of no concern to the other side. That is not true. It is not possible to argue that people who share a tradition have no legitimate interests in common with people of that tradition a few miles down the road. If people inhabiting the same island have nothing to say to one another but recrimination, everyone will suffer. If they seek actively to promote enmity between two parts of the island, they are bequeathing to their children a chilling legacy.
Of course, it takes two to agree. Of course, something depends on the Republic demonstrating that the fears expressed in such dramatic terms in certain quarters are illusory. It is not for me to tell the Republic how to conduct its affairs, but I have my views as to where its best interests will lie over the next few weeks.
What better vehicle could there be than the Anglo-Irish agreement for demonstrating how much the two parts of

the island have in common? I confess that there was a moment when I allowed myself to hope that the two Governments would together find a way of saving the Northern Ireland gas industry. A great opportunity was missed. I was pleased that we were told in the joint statement by the Intergovernmental Conference earlier this week that those involved had discussed the importance of the main road between Belfast and Dublin and had agreed to explore the best way of improving the road link between Newry and Dundalk.
There is a need for public investment in roads and in infrastructure. Perhaps the public funds that have been saved by the dissolution which is taking place today could be devoted, in some measure at least, to that purpose. There are people eating out their hearts on the dole who could be working to meet the needs about which, apparently, the conference talked. They are people who live on the same island, whose needs are common needs. The enemies are want, squalor and idleness. All those people are fighting in that battle on the same side, as allies.
If, whenever we ask the Secretary of State what has been achieved by the agreement, he speaks only of security, that would be a mistake. [Interruption.] I see that he and his colleagues agree. It is not that security is not important but that, as we were reminded this week, by its very nature, one cannot tell people what has been decided or what has emerged from the discussion. If, within the measurable future, the Government cannot demonstrate some benefit to the people of Northern Ireland from the Anglo-Irish agreement, they will reap the worst of both worlds. They will have encountered the aggravation, the misrepresentation and all the imagined conspiracies and will not have reassured those who set their hopes on the agreement.
This is a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of hon. Members hope to catch your eye so I shall make just two final points. One contribution which we who live outside Northern Ireland can make is to practise a self-denying ordinance. We can decide that, if we cannot impose peace, we at least will not do anything to increase the bitterness. If we cannot build bridges, we will not destroy them. If we cannot heal the wounds, we will not deepen them.
Critics of the Government have complained of the insensitivity of giving the Government of the Republic even a consultative role in Northern Ireland, because that might upset the susceptibilities of the Unionist people. I agree that the absence of consultation when that was done was less than sensitive. I hope that those same hon. Members will appreciate that a proposal for complete integration, treating Northern Ireland as though it were geographically situated between the Humber and the Wash, might offend the susceptibilities of the Nationalist people and even, I suspect, at least half the Unionist people.
The Secretary of State has spoken of the historical and cultural difficulties that might defeat an attempt to devise ways of integrating Northern Ireland into the administration of the United Kingdom. It has never been treated simply as part of the United Kingdom. For virtually all its existence its people have not actually sought that.
Assuming that it were feasible, that the people of Great Britain were to agree to the proposal and the House were totally persuaded, is it to be done only with the consent of the Nationalist people and the Unionist people, or would it be a solution which the people who live in Great Britain


were seeking to impose on the people of Northern Ireland? Our debates may not always appear to be achieving a great deal. It would be tragic if they contributed to the divisions, bitterness and recriminations.
There is a message which could go out from the House, one on which we could perhaps all agree. Northern Ireland has had a bad press in Great Britain, especially in the past few months. Many people on this side of the water have lost patience with what has appeared as the intransigence of people in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Mallon: All the people of Northern Ireland'?

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman has asked a relevant question. I was deliberately trying not to be provocative. He knows what my answer would be to his question but, if he insists on an answer, it is that the Unionist people have had a bad press on this side of the water.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for clarifying the position. I was not encouraging him to make an anti-Unionist remark. I was trying to encourage him to ensure that he stated that all the people of the north of Ireland are not against agreement, peace or a constructive way forward. That must be clearly understood. especially in relation to the way in which other political parties in the north of Ireland are claiming the term "the people of Northern Ireland".

Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is right. I accept all that he has said and, in another context, I might actually have put that argument. He will see in a moment why I put it in the way I did. The hon. Gentleman is right—the Unionist people of Northern Ireland have had a bad press.

Mr. John Hume: The leaders have had a bad press.

Mr. Archer: I have met Unionist people in Northern Ireland who thought that they were not well served by their spokesmen.
It is perhaps ironic that some of the very virtues in the character of the Unionist people have contributed to that image — their passionate commitment to what they believe, their refusal to take the easy way out and their loyalty to their traditions, but much is going on in Northern Ireland of which Northern Ireland can be proud. There are people whose passionate commitment is to building a peaceful community. There are people demonstrating the success of integrated education. There are people holding dialogues across the divide in situations which make greater demands on their courage than anything we say makes on ours.
It is easy for us to debate these issues. Those people are carrying on the debate where it might easily have been silenced. They receive little recognition or encouragement. I believe that they will find a larger place in the history books of the future than they find in the news media of today. They are dismissed as visionaries but, if we are short on anything in Northern Ireland, it is vision. I hope that the House will do all it can to encourage those who seek to keep that hope alive. One day it may be justified.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Secretary of State has announced to the House in the form of the first of two orders which we are considering that there is to be no continuation in the foreseeable future of a Northern Ireland Assembly which was set up by the Northern

Ireland Act 1982. That is a decision which came as a shock and even a surprise to hardly anyone in the Province. The extent to which it is accepted that that was a foregone conclusion might surprise even the right hon. Gentleman.
In the Stormont Chamber yesterday afternoon, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) sitting opposite my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan. Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said across the Dispatch Boxes., "The right hon. Gentleman and I will never sit again in a. Northern Ireland Assembly." It is not surprising that this conclusion in 1986 should be foregone when we remember that all the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland opposed the 1982 legislaton. The present Speaker of the Assembly was among those who voted with the rest of us against it Those who were most intimately concerned with Northern Ireland warned and foresaw that the outcome of that endeavour would be frustration.
There were two reasons for that, which can usefully be kept distinct. The first was that that Act created an Assembly which was given neither power nor responsibility, but over which was dangled the bait that it might perhaps have instalments of both if it could discover the undiscoverable, achieve the unachievable and if it could devise a constitutional way in which those who were elected to serve opposite political objectives could maintain that they had achieved, were achieving, or were contributing to the achievement of that which they had represented to their respective electors.
There was an essential falsity and impracticability in the basis upon which the Northern Ireland Act 1982 was constructed. The Assembly was set an impossible task. It was not impossible because of ill will, but inherently impossible in the circumstances which existed then and which exist still.

Mr. Hume: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who never concealed his view on this matter, however much he was mistakenly abused for stating it.
There was a deeper reason why the Act, over which a veil is now being drawn, was foredoomed to failure and, that is—and I shall use a word which I will instantly qualify—the devolutionary context in which it was seen. I qualify that expression all the more because this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in two vivid and remarkable passages in his speech, has taken the old, rather boring, antithesis between integration and devolution and given to both of them an interpretation which I believe is enlightening and useful. He has contrasted with the concept of integration the fact that British rights are available to British citizens under different forms of government, if we examine them, and under different parliamentary regimes in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, in a way he has liberated us from many of the more grotesque implications of a term which has been used more as a term of aggression than enlightenment in Northern Ireland debates. In referring to devolution—I shall return to this later—he referred to devolved administration in the Province, thus making one of the vital distinctions in this subject, the distinction between legislative and administrative devolution.
It is important to understand the background to the attachment to the aim of devolution which all


Governments have professed since 1969 — since 1972 when they destroyed one devolved administrative structure in order to attempt to replace it with another, right up to 1985 when they wrote that aspiration into the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
We know the reasons why, at the beginning of the section of the story—that is, in 1919 when some of us would say that what was mistakenly called the Northern Ireland state was created — it was regarded by the Government of the day as impossible that those who had not voted themselves out of the United Kingdom at the 1918 election should remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Since we are dealing with a period in which the records are open, there need be no dispute or debate about what the motivation was. There was one very clear and definite reason why the people of Northern Ireland were told that they would have to have home rule whether they liked it or not, the acceptance of which Sir James Craig described as the "ultimate sacrifice" which they were called upon to make.
I shall not trouble the House with many quotations, but I think that it is worth putting on record one or two from the Cabinet meetings of December 1919 when the form of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was being decided by the Lloyd George coalition. The minutes of the Cabinet stated that
a united Ireland with a single parliament
was
the ultimate aim of the Government's policy.
The Cabinet said that the Bill had to be
a measure which paved the way for a single Irish parliament".
A week later the Cabinet said that the Bill should be framed bearing in mind that its "ultimate aim" should be the unity of Ireland.
From 1920, the insistence of the mother country upon home rule in that part of the United Kingdom was motivated by its determination that the interests and political purposes of the United Kingdom required that sooner or later, in some way or other, there should he an all-Ireland state. That is the framework and the background against which, quite inevitably and understandably, the profession of a determination to secure devolution in Northern Ireland was bound to be viewed in the Province.
Like its predecessors, this constitutional experiment has come to its predicted fate. As the House proceeds to approve the draft order, as I am sure it will, there is one practical point I should like to put to the Secretary of State. Very shortly we are going to put an end to the life of the Assembly. He did not announce the precise date and I appreciate that that may depend upon the convenience of the sovereign in relation to the holding of the necessary Privy Council. However, he can ensure that when the date is fixed it is such as to enable there to be courteous, reasonable and understanding treatment of those who, for a number of years, have given their services to this institution. There have been some unpleasant rumours of less than courteous and considerate treatment being intended.

Mr. Tom King: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I am glad to have the Secretary of State's assent, and I am sure that he will see that that does not happen. I know that it could not possibly be his intention.
With that behind us, we ask, "What next?" Part of that debate is laid before the House in terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order, but the whole of the debate is not summed up within the confines of that order. Last week, in answering questions after his statement, the Secretary of State recognised candidly that there was a certain absurdity in a form of government in which, between the Secretary of State and his Department and district councils which were little more than parish councils, there was no administrative machinery with any democratic input from the people who were governed. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right and he is right in saying that there cannot be British rights for British citizens, in the connotation which he gave to that phrase unless there is in Northern Ireland, as there is in the rest of Great Britain, representative local government in the sense of representative administration. — [Interruption.] I am not such a pessimist as the hon. Member for Foyle.

Mr. Hume: I would advise the right hon. Gentleman that he has a very short memory. Those hon. Members who argued for integration and for giving power to local authorities in Northern Ireland on the same basis as on this island also have short memories. It is precisely because of serious abuse of those powers by local authorities in Northern Ireland that we find outselves in our present position. The parish councils to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have shown no sign that they have changed their attitudes in any way. I certainly would not want to be a member of the minority community in Northern Ireland in one of the council districts if they had substantial power over planning, housing, education or any other serious matter.

Mr. Powell: My experience and observation are not in line with that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hume: I only live there.

Mr. Powell: Well, I have three district councils wholly or partly in my constituency. In one there is a large majority and in another a small majority which is anti-Unionist and in the third there is a Unionist majority. Within the scope of their administration those councils behave as effectively and their officials administer as effectively as in the corresponding bodies in Britain. I see no impracticability if the anxieties persist which the hon. Member for Foyle has expressed, in a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland being given powers of intervention and regulation which exceed those — though they are considerable and have recently been increased—which are held by central Government in Britain.
I make two suggestions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the context of the glaring gap which he rightly identified. First, he should move gradually and not in bold leaps. We have a structure, to which the hon. Member for Foyle has not been entirely fair, on which it is possible to build, having due regard to the circumstances and to the past, which has been mentioned, and to the anxieties. If we do that we shall be encouraged to go further. If rolling devolution was a failure we might well find that rolling local government was a practical success.
In that context I ask the Secretary of State not to be dismissive—I know he did not intend to be—of what was said last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). A great deal can be said


for an outside mind or minds being brought to bear upon the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. After all, there is widespread respect for the architect of what we now in retrospect see to have been the ill-fated reorganisation. or destruction, of local government which occurred in the last year or two of the Stormont Administration. The Secretary of State could well derive assistance, in presentation and in substance, by seeking outside advice, clearly respectable and valued advice, upon the directions in which local government could be developed in the Province. That is one of the directions in which we must work.
Another direction in which we must work is more directly connected with the second order which is before the House. When a previous attempt at what lay behind the purposes of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 collapsed in 1974 it was natural — I make no complaint of the Government of the day for having done so— that the 1973 legislation what I might call the Sunningdale power-sharing legislation—was put into cold storage for the time being. A system of administration, which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, no one would willingly invent or commend, was installed on a year's purchase while people reassembled their notions after the collapse at the beginning of 1974.
In 1986 neither the Secretary of State and the House nor the political parties in Northern Ireland seriously believe that in the foreseeable future there is the prospect of either the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 or the Northern Ireland Act 1982 producing the basis of a devolved administration in the Province. Yet nevertheless, year after year, for fear of admitting what everyone knows and what everyone privately, and often publicly, admits, we continue to re-enact a system of government which is intolerable in a part of the United Kingdom and which is deeply resented by a large part of the people of Northern Ireland. It is resented not only by the Unionists, but they live in the part of the United Kingdom where the laws are made — this is the most sensitive impact of a Government upon the citizen—by the Secretary of State in a form which is neither satisfactorily debatable nor amendable.
We must find a way in which the making of the laws in Northern Ireland can be brought into an acceptable accord with the ways in which the laws are made for the rest of the United Kingdom. It may well be that the models of Wales and Scotland will be an example of the way in which the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, which the Secretary of State mentioned, can be taken into account. His analysis of that provided the agenda for considerable reflection, discussion and work upon that theme.
For the time being I do not dispute that, lacking foundation, or at any rate the foundation being cluttered by the legislative wreckage of 1973 and 1982, it is unavoidable that the Secretary of State should bring the order forward. I hope that it will be the last full year that the regime runs. I hope that in the following 12 months a way will be found, which will be honourable and acceptable to all in Northern Ireland, whereby the legislation which is imposed upon the citizens of Northern Ireland is enacted in a manner which is felt to be as fair and as democratic as the manner in which legislation is enacted for Wales, Scotland or the rest of Great Britain.
Both the contributions of the Secretary of State and of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West have taken us further in this debate than we have yet been in the years since 1972—and, I am tempted to say, since 1969. To some extent, I have taken a leaf out of the book of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West in putting considerable emphasis on getting things in the immediate future into a tolerable condition, so far as we can do so without incurring dangerous symbolic implications and impacts upon the more distant future.
In this debate we are essentially considering how we carry on and what work we shall do together in the next 12 months. There is material for that in the two speeches which we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the Secretary of State this afternoon.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: For people who have experienced a debate such as this in the Chamber before, there must be a sense of deja vu. This must he the 12th or 13th year that this sort of debate has taken place.

Mr. Hume: The 14th.

Mr. Mallon: It is my first experience. For that reason I want to make three points.
First, I am sad that once again an initiative in Northern Irish terms has failed. I say that as one who opposed the setting up of the Assembly and its continuance and considered its ending with some satisfaction. I am sad because I witnessed the initiative and was part of it in 1974. I was also part of it in 1976, the period to which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) also referred. I see the same initiative again in 1986. I ask myself essentially the same question as the right hon. Member for South Down asked himself from an entirely different perspective: is the approach to this problem the right approach or is it hanging on to an approach that has failed and may even continue to fail? That is the key question that must be at the back of all our minds at present.
I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for South Down. He made a very pertinent and erudite speech but he missed a point, which is the one certainty in the entire position in Northern Ireland, which we ought never to miss. It is that if we could persuade every Nationalist living in the north of Ireland to leave or to go to the shores of Lough Neagh one morning and jump in,, the problem would be over. The problem would then have redefined itself in terms which would allow for an accommodation, either within an integrated British sense or within an integrated Irish sense. On the other hand, if' we could encourage all Unionists to go to the shores of Belfast Lough on a designated morning and jump in at the same time, the problem would again he over.
Neither of those two things will happen. Nationalists will not leave Northern Ireland, nor will Unionists. We are left with the one certainty that whatever way we try to grapple with the problem, from whatever dimension we approach it, we arrive at one constant point, and that is that we have two sets of people living in a small part of a small island who must accommodate each other within the smallness of their political lives or, if they will not live together, die apart. That is the reality which is not catered for by the theses which the right hon. Member for South Down has so eloquently postulated.
Irrespective of one's theory and the dimension from which one looks, and irrespective of the ideological standpoint one begins at, that is the crunch reality and the one with which we must all deal, whether we favour, as I do, unequivocally, the creation of Irish unity, whether we favour integration or see devolution as perhaps a halfway stage to either, or perhaps as a way of partially washing our hands of the problem.
If that is the reality, we must not shirk it. From whatever ideological point we start, we are being irresponsible if we do not look at that reality and see how we can cope with it. People must ask themselves this question: if there was integration of the type advocated by the right hon. Member for South Down, and the various pieces of machinery whereby legislation could be vetted and judged here, would that of itself be a contribution towards allowing the two sections of people to live together in the way that they must?
That would take one thing from them — their own constructive element in building that part of their lives. We would be catering for a situation which, I must confess, I find to some extent condescending and humbuggish — that if we hand down to the people of the north of Ireland that which is properly examined here it would be satisfying to the people of Northern Ireland. Anybody who knows anything about both sections of the community there would know clearly that that would not satisfy them because it would remove from them the one great dynamic —the means to create their own future in a way that is uniquely Northern Irish. The Secretary of State has been giving his views on the north of Ireland in relation to this island, but the one thing that we can say with some certainty is that it is uniquely different.
Let me make a further point on using the council structure as the basis for an administrative structure in the north of Ireland. I have belonged to a district council since the creation of the present local government structure in 1973. It is not in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South Down. In those 14 years, not only have I not had access to power within that council—power to do things or to prevent things being done — I have not been successful once in 14 years in being elected to a subcommittee of that council. The work of sub-committees ranges from placing children's playgrounds on housing estates, collecting bins to sometimes assuming responsibility for burying the dead. That gives a fairly accurate assessment of how local government is still working in a very partial way.
Let there be no doubt about it. We are are not talking of parish councils. That is a folksy type of idiom and is inaccurate. I speak as a parish councillor. That terminology would be resisted in political terms by the political representatives of the Nationalist community because not only have we seen what happened in the past but we are seeing what is happening to this very day. Look at Craigavon, Armagh and Ballymena. Look all round the councils of the north of Ireland. Anybody who would even toy with the notion of making those the basis of an administrative structure would be very foolish indeed.
There is a spurious argument, which has been expressed many times, that the Assembly, the wind-up of which we are now discussing, should not be wound up because it gives a platform to those people who are using it. My party and its leader regarded the Assembly from the word go as

something which could not succeed because, as the right hon. Member for South Down pointed out, it had not the power of decision. It could not decide on anything whatever. Again, he missed the basic point that that type of political condescension does not attract people in Northern Ireland. We said then it was a white elephant and it was. Subsequently, I said that not only was it a white elephant but it had become a rogue elephant as it charged its way into the telephone exchange and blasted itself out of existence. I could even stretch that analogy further and say that it became "Buzby babes" overnight as it put itself out of business.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Might the hon. Gentleman and his party consider going back into the Assembly if a fresh order created new elections to that Assembly, if the conditons were right?

Mr. Mallon: My party, as its leader has said consistently, is prepared to enter into discussions to reach agreement about what will take place in the north of Ireland and, having reached that agreement, then to go from a position of strength to the electorate to seek a mandate, and then to go into any Administration with the strength of that mandate behind us. In that way we could tackle problems which are almost insurmountable and which would require the weight of that mandate to enable them to be tackled. That is our position and will be our position.
There has been much discussion of the Anglo-Irish accord. I do not want to go into the details or workings of it, or even the non-workings of it, but it has done one thing which is crucial to the resolution of our problems —it has posed two choices. It has posed the question to Unionism and to sections within the Unionist community: "Can you live with the concept of equality and justice for all people in the north of Ireland?" Until that key question is answered positively, there will not be a proper solution. Devolution will fail in those circumstances, integration will fail in those circumstances, and every other approach will fail until, within the machinery set up by both Governments, the Unionist community at large can say that it can live with the principle of equality for all and with the principle of justice for all.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten the warning that he gave at the beginning of his speech. The question is not simply whether we can live with equality and justice, but in what state we are to live in equality and justice with all the other members of that state.

Mr. Mallon: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman clearly the basis on which the community that I represent wishes to live within that state. There is only one basis and that is as equals under a proper system of justice—nothing else. If we have to continue to live within the north of Ireland, if the creation of Irish unity, which I want to see happen, will not happen, as I accept, next week, next year, or perhaps even the year after, I want to live as an equal with a proper system of justice. That is the challenge which has been thrown down to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. It has not yet been answered and, until it is, none of the attempts being made will come to fruition.
If those twin aims of the Anglo-Irish accord are realised, if the British Government have the courage and the will to carry through the much needed changes that will


realise those aims, and if the Irish Government also have the will to face the challenges of those twin aims of equality and justice, Northern Ireland as we know it will be changed. Unionism as we know it will become an anachronism. Nationalism, as it has always been defined, will become almost an anachronism as well. The political faces of both communities will be changed. The events of the next six months will prove whether that challenge can be met by the communities of Northern Ireland. the political parties in the United Kingdom, or the Government of the Republic.

Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Assembly is not dead. I suppose that it is in a coma. He reminded me of certain companies in California which advertise the facility for popping one's loved ones into a refrigerator and bringing them out again at a later date.
However, in this debate we are burying not the Assembly but the policy which has been pursued by successive Secretaries of State since the abolition of Stormont. As I understand it, that policy rested on devolution based on power sharing and an Irish dimension. It has been pursued energetically, consistently and in an undeterred way by five Secretaries of State. I do not know whether they were the right men for that job. The political climate of Northern Ireland is very different from the Machiavellian gentility of the usual channels here, or from the passive broad acres of East Anglia. I do not know whether it was a good idea for three ex-Chief Whips and two East Anglian country gentlemen to do the job, but I am not sure that anybody could have done it, because there is a basic inconsistency in the formula of devolved power sharing and a foreign dimension. There are few examples of successful power sharing. The Lebanon was often cited as one of the best. I played some part in designing a power-sharing constitution for Cyprus. However, the ruins of both are apparent to all.
The introduction of the Irish dimension was bound to be fatal simply because it meant that the Irish Minister would be supporting the minority community, while the Secretary of State, as was his duty, had to take note of the interests of all of the Province. He could not be the supporter of the majority, and so the concept was an unequal one from the beginning. That policy has been tried and has failed miserably. Sunningdale failed because the Irish dimension was too much for the majority to swallow. The Assembly failed because the SDLP found that the Irish dimension was not enough, and Hillsborough has been too much for the majority.
It is time to recognise that this concept cannot work because it is strange to the Unionists, it is not conciliatory to the Nationalists, and, meanwhile, the IRA continues to go about its deadly business.
The Secretary of State said that he still stood by the policy because it is logical. Maybe it is, but Ireland is not known as the home of logic. The policy has clearly failed and the speeches that we have heard from distinguished right hon. and hon. Members representing the Province show that they are completely unreconciled to that basic concept. Nothing is more dangerous in politics than to he tied to the practice of what is obviously a dead policy. After 15 years we need a new approach, but for the moment it must continue to be direct rule.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the decision to suspend the Assembly, and talked about local government being at present no more than parish committees. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could follow the advice of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and move gently towards something else. Improved arrangements for the transaction of Northern Ireland business could perhaps be pursued here, in the Palace of Westminster. The block presented by the Hillsborough arrangements still remains and I urge my right hon. Friend to put it on the back burner, and to try to limit it for the time being to trans-border security.
The issues at stake are complex and I am sure that the Minister will understand my view that they are by no means limited to Northern Ireland. It is almost 100 years to the day since Joseph Chamberlain and Hartington broke up the Liberal Government in order to stop Gladstone's onward career towards home rule. They realised that such a course would lead to the break up of the kingdom. As a result of that remarkable Cabinet crisis, an alliance of the Liberal Unionists and Conservatives was formed. It stood the country in good stead in the years that followed. Hon. Members on this side of the House, in believing that their policies were right, and that the policies of the Opposition would have been disastrous, were often able to continue with their work, thanks to the support of the Unionist party.
It is not necessary to do much crystal gazing if one looks at the public opinion polls, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues might need to have the support of the Northern Ireland Unionists, not just to carry out policies relating to Northern Ireland, but to carry out those policies relating to national security, defence and the economy which we believe are vital to the future of the United Kingdom. British statesmanship requires that we give the highest priority to ending the estrangement between our party and the Ulster Unionists.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Hon. Members are always glad to listen to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I had hoped that he would bring with him today his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. This is a new situation, and as such perhaps it could have been the occasion on which the Ulster Unionist party as a whole recognised that the Union must be defended in the Parliament of the Union.
Perhaps it is less surprising that those hon. Members are not present because this debate follows hard upon yet another meeting of the hated Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Dr. Garret FitzGerald is a humane statesman and must therefore share the concern of Her Majesty's Government at events in the Province since the Anglo-Irish agreement was concluded at Hillsborough. If Her Majesty's Government wish to resume contact with the Ulster Unionists, and if the Irish Government wish to contribute to a better relationship between the north and south, and between the Republic and the United Kingdom, dealings between the sovereign Governments of these islands should be conducted not within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference but within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. The latter was there previously and could equally well perform the functions intended by the two Governments, including


discussion of the Belfast to Dublin road to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) attaches importance.
The Secretary of State was looking forward to yet another Assembly. I do not, unless it is perhaps a regional council. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said that the Assembly was a waste of money, yet he voted for it while I did not. I have looked up the relevant information and it took 98 hours and 14 minutes of parliamentary time for the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill to become an Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) drew a telling comparison with the other Assemblies that were once proposed for other parts of the United Kingdom. He said that a referendum was required by the House before such Assemblies could become effective.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend will no doubt remember better than I that at the time of the Sunningdale agreement the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a clear statement that nothing would be undertaken without the clear approval of the majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. What happened to that democratic commitment in the context of the Anglo-Irish agreement 13 years later?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: No doubt a reply to that question will come from the Treasury Bench before the debate is concluded.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State courteously gave way to me when I intervened about the work of scrutiny carried out by the Assembly. My right hon. Friend said that it was far better for that task to be carried out in Northern Ireland because more local people could then be involved. But if that is so, the same argument must apply to Scottish and Welsh legislation. However, I do not think that my right hon. Friend wants to set up Assemblies in Wales or Scotland.
When I was taught the principles of war, I was told never to reinforce failure. However, the Government seem to have reversed that maxim in relation to their Northern Ireland policy. The devolved government that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State still seeks cannot be achieved in a form that is acceptable across the community, or to the House. When will the Northern Ireland Office understand that no term can be put to terrorism, and that Northern Ireland can never settle down, when will it understand that Unionist Ulster cannot be brought to applaud and assist the development of the "unique relationship" with the Irish Republic without fear of betrayal, when Ministers and mandarins continue to deceive themselves and impose their short-lived experiments and—as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said—constitutional devices?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State apologised for the renewal of what we call direct rule. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) made stringent criticisms of the way that it operates. But public opinion polls show that direct rule is the second choice of most people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a general agreement on second best is better than no agreement at all. Moreover, direct rule made democratic through local government equals integration.
We have always honoured Airey Neave in this House. But perhaps it would be better to honour him by

considering the policy that he put forward than by merely paying tribute to him in words. I shall not be found guilty of the bad taste of citing any Conservative and Unionist party manifesto in this connection, but I should like to quote just a few of Airey Neave's words. They were prescient. because they anticipated the new Ireland forum and what followed it. He was addressing Conservatives in Maldon, Essex, in May 1978, and he said:
Recent attempts to seduce the whole community of Ulster into a Federal Ireland, and similar unpractical dreams, are doomed … We believe nonetheless that both sections of the community would benefit from restoring to Ulster an upper tier of local government".
We have heard all the arguments about the undesirability of enlarging local government in Northern Ireland. The Catholic dustbins of Lisburn have entered into the mythology of nationalist grievance. But we expect Ministers, especially powerful Ministers such as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to hash bigotry, just as we expect Ministers in other Departments to act against political discrimination and local government mismanagement—of which there is plenty in some of Great Britain's big cities. But we know why the Government will not enlarge local government: the SDLP does not want it. Incidentally, there is no SDLP Member in the Chamber.
We are told that we must get rid of the Unionist veto on progress in Northern Ireland. But there seems to be more of a Nationalist veto than a Unionist veto. Why does the SDLP object to enlarging local government? Plenty of SDLP councillors would welcome an enlargement of their functions. Many of them are doing a good job for their people and for the community as a whole, and would like to do more. Indeed, I pay tribute to many Nationalist-dominated authorities which have treated Unionists in a spirit of co-operation. But the SDLP objects, because integration— to use the short word—arrests any slide into the south. I accept that the SDLP wants devolved government, but on its terms.
Northern Nationalism is a legitimate opinion to hold, which we should respect. I certainly do. That Nationalist opinion could be allowed expression through further border polls or, preferably, by the question put in the plebiscite of 1972 being added to ballot papers in elections in Northern Ireland, so that there can be continuing consultation with the people of Northern Ireland. If the SDLP or any other Nationalist party could convert their countrymen in the Province to a united Ireland, we would not stand in the way of that.
There are many Irish Nationalists in cities on this side of the water, and they have learnt to live as a respected part of the British family. They are a minority in Great Britain, but a larger minority in Northern Ireland. What is so distressing about every futile political initiative is that its message is, "There you are. You are separate communities. Stay in the ghettoes." Every political initiative, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, has institutionalised the sectarian divide. Many Catholics want the Union. However, at elections they are almost compelled to choose between parties whose aspect is tribal.
We must establish equal rights, equal citizenship, and full administrative devolution under the sovereignty and protection of Parliament. It follows— I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are on common ground here — that the people of Northern Ireland should exert their proper influence at the centre of


power, here at Westminster, through the party system of the United Kingdom. and through political parties or alliances that correspond with those in Great Britain. That is the way forward, and no one has shown me any other.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has made an attractive case but, as he will anticipate, I shall not go down his road. As a supporter of the initiative taken by the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), I am saddened by the demise of the Assembly. However, it was right that that decision was taken.
There is no doubt that after its inception the Assembly did some useful work. I have many of the documents still on my hook shelves which show that the Assembly carried out useful work on social security and agriculture in Northern Ireland. I also take the opportunity to pay my respect to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) who, as Speaker, fulfilled his role in the Assembly with some distinction.
In recent months the magnificent facilities at Stormont have been abused. The Alliance withdrew and Stormont became a venue for weekly attacks on the Government at a not inconsiderable cost to United Kingdom taxpayers. It will now go down in history as yet another lost opportunity. However, the only realistic way forward for the Province must be through a devolved administration with the respective parties acting in partnership and possessing sufficient powers to make and implement important decisions. The siren voices—we have heard them already today and there will be more — calling from the Government Back Benches for total integration may satisfy a few hard liners but will do nothing to reduce tension. Furthermore, they will do nothing in the long run to help revitalise the economy of Northern Ireland. I know that that view is shared by many Unionists.
Northern Ireland is not unique in that respect. In my view, the restructuring of the whole of the economy of the United Kingdom is almost entirely dependent on the return of meaningful power and decision making to the regions, cities and counties of our country. I attended a meeting at lunchtime today with the development commission, which carries out great work in rural areas. The commission is not responsible to any elected authority. I wish that that similarity could be more widely understood in the Province. I recognise the role played by the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Northern Ireland Development Board among others, but I believe that they should both be responsible to an elected authority.
Once again, the British Government must go back to the drawing board. Unless some willingness to make concessions and to co-operate is forthcoming from the various party leaders, no new initiative is likely, and Ulster will be the poorer for that. It is surely not beyond the wit of the leaders of society, and especially politicians, to get together and agree on a structure that gives both communities a fair share of responsibility in the daily running of the Province. Failure to make such concession can only mean continuing violence and death and leaves the local population with no hope for the future. What is more, 53·5 million people living in the rest of Britain will eventually and inevitably seriously question why they should continue to fund such a high proportion of the

Northern Ireland budget when local leaders refuse even to sit down and talk to each other or to Her Majesty's Ministers.
We want to know how much longer we must wait before the political leaders in Northern Ireland put the future well- being of their country first. That is the future not only of Northern Ireland but of Great Britain, too. When will they accept the challenge to establish a power-sharing Administration which will, coincidentally, immediately lessen the influence of the Anglo-Irish Conference?
Watching the Harland and Wolff workers marching with their banners this week must make those being laid off in our shipyards in the north-east and elsewhere ask why they should continue to support that yard. I have enormous respect for John Parker and his work force. Moreover, the yard is probably the best fitted out in Europe and I only wish that it was refitting the QE2, but I also sometimes wonder why I should continue to back that yard from the alliance Benches. Apart from a few well publicised incidents, when things have gone seriously wrong—obviously Bloody Sunday was one—successive British Ministers have, since 1969, tried their level best to correct the mistakes of the past. On the whole, I believe that we have succeeded and deserve credit, not eternal criticism, for so doing. We just do not deserve the abuse that continues to pour forth from the lips of some of those who purport to be political leaders and, incidentally, Christians.
Housing provision has improved beyond recognition in the nine years that I have been visiting Northern Ireland. Londonderry has a new city centre which won an award last week. There is a new £23 million bridge nearby. Large new bungalows and substantial modern houses occupy attractive sites on farms over a wide area of the Province. Even in Belfast, many excellent homes have been built and renovated. Two weeks ago I visited two firms which have climbed out of receivership with the aid of the Northern Ireland Development Board—Tyrone Glass and Belleek China.
Such success might be hard to believe when listening to Northern Ireland politicians. They continue ad nauseam to abuse those in authority. One even had the gall to try the Prime Minister for treason in the centre of Belfast and sentenced her to the electric chair. A new generation has grown up in that atmosphere, soured by the appalling actions of the Provisional IRA and INLA and the weekly propaganda from both sides. What was it that so soured Patrick Magee, now serving a life sentence, that he chose to try to blow to smithereens the leaders of the country where he grew up? How did he come to hate us to such art extent when he spent much of his youth in the pleasant city of Norwich? I suggest that when he returned to Belfast he became infected with all the sentiment, bigotry and propaganda that still prevail instead of being able to recognise the desperate need for changed attitudes.
The stupidity of Anglo-Irish relations is that, whether we like it or not, we are all widely inter-related. Many second generation Irish sit in this House and even the Lord Chancellor has referred to his Irish antecedents recently. Irish men and women serve in the House and many of us have Irish ancestry in our blood. I have three Irish grandchildren myself. That is what makes the call "Brits out" so stupid. The message that I believe should go out to the Province from this House is, firstly, that the Anglo-Irish agreement is here to stay. and it will not be watered


down. Secondly, despite our equable temperament in this land, the time may be approaching when we may feel constrained to say "Work together or go it alone."

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Now tell us about Polaris.

Mr. Ross: That is the type of comment that I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman.
Finally, I would like to pay a special tribute to the RUC. Despite all that it has suffered, I found on my recent visit that morale was high and its determination to see the summer through was evident, despite the likely provocation. Mr. Wright has a serious point when he calls for local politicians to put their act together and stop leaving the RUC to pick up the pieces and do all the dirty work. Mr. Wright echoes my sentiments entirely. I wish the RUC and the Chief Constable well in the tasks that lie ahead. They hold a tremendous responsibility this summer. If they succeed, as I believe that they will, there is just a chance that saner counsels will prevail. In the meantime, I wish that all citizens in Northern Ireland and those outside the Province would sit down, read and inwardly digest the words of the Northern Ireland accord.

Mr. Ian Gow: I had hoped that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon would have shown that there had been some narrowing of the gulf that I believe exists between the six Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. It is with deep regret that I have to say that I believe that my right hon. Friend's speech gave no sign of a greater understanding by those who sit on the Treasury Bench of the true feeling of the people of Northern Ireland.
In answer to an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that his justification for the failure to have a referendum in Northern Ireland along the lines of the referendums held in Scotland and Wales was that, whereas the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978 proposed that Scotland and Wales should be governed differently from the way that they had been governed previously, the Anglo-Irish agreement meant that there was no change in the way that Northern Ireland was governed.
I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that neither the Government of the Irish Republic nor the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland agree with him when he says that there has been no change in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. My right hon. Friend affirms, as he is entitled to do, his earlier argument that no analogy is perfect, but I put this analogy to him. If the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany were to lay claim to the French département of Lorraine, and if there were an agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the German Federal Republic that henceforth the Government of Germany would be able to put forward views and proposals in regard to Lorraine, and that the French Government would reach agreement on the proposals put forward by Germany for the government of Lorraine, does my right hon. Friend really believe that, in those circumstances, the people of Lorraine would say, "We are governed in the same way under the new arrangement as we were in the past"?

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend made the interesting comment that, effectively, there was a change in government, and that that was the view of the significant majority, and also of the Irish Government. Will he give me the quotation to which he referred, in which the Irish Government state that there is now a change of the system of government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gow: Yes, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic are both on record as having said in the Dail and elsewhere that the system of government in Northern Ireland was different after 15 November from the system before then. I shall happily give my right hon. Friend exact quotations from both the Irish Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the Anglo-Irish agreement is that there has been a different interpretation upon the agreement by my right hon. Friend and by Ministers in the Irish Government.
It is not only the assertion by my right hon. Friend that there has been no change in the system of Government for Northern Ireland — a view that is not shared by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland — which reveals the gulf between the Treasury Bench and the people of Northern Ireland. I was much concerned when my right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to enter into discussions—I think that he genuinely meant this — with anybody in Northern Ireland without preconditions. But this afternoon my right hon. Friend spelt out one precondition that was most unwelcome to some of my hon. Friends, as it was to me. That precondition was that the Government have excluded, without further discussions, the possibility of what my right hon. Friend described as "total integration." Those words have never fallen from my lips. I have never used the words "total integration".
It was noticeable that, in the most recent two questions that I asked my right hon. Friend, he answered a question that I had not asked. For the sake of accuracy, I have the Official Report here. On 5 June, I asked:
is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the Province which believes that the best way forward now is through integration, which would offer proper safeguards for the minority in Northern Ireland?
My right hon. Friend replied, not to the question that I had put to him:
some concept of total integration would raise difficult issues." —[Official Report, 5 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 1073.] 
I did not use the words "total integration". They were the words of my right hon. Friend. A week later, on 12 June, I put this question to my right hon. Friend:
Would he acknowledge that, even if that"—
that is, devolution— 
is the preferred solution of the Government today, he will not exclude from his consideration the fact that we should govern Northern Ireland in the way in which we govern other parts of this kingdom?
My right hon. Friend replied:
Obviously we would seek to govern Northern Ireland as fairly, equally and impartially as we seek to govern every part of the United Kingdom. However, to suggest that that involves total harmonisation of every structure of government flies in the face of experience and practice of the present situation. —[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.508.]
When I remind my right hon. Friend of the two questions that I asked, one on 5 June and the other on 12 June, I think that he will confirm that I have never suggested "total integration" and that I have never


suggested what he described as "total harmonisation". I have never put forward such a suggestion. I want to spell out, in language that all of us can understand, what I mean by integration, or the alternative description of the same thing—administrative devolution. I should like my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to what I say, as I know he will, because I want to give way to him at the end of this part of my speech.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is excluding from his consideration and from discussions with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and from discussions with others, the possible solution that I am about to describe. That which I am about to describe is nothing new to my right hon. Friend. He was a member of the shadow Cabinet when the 1979 general election manifesto was being drafted. I have to assume that he aquiesced in, if he did not actually support, that which appeared in the manifesto:
In the absence of devolved government, we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils".
That is an exact quotation. Of course, the policy that was set out in that manifesto was abandoned following the assassination of our late right hon. Friend the then Member for Abingdon, Airey Neave. My right hon. Friend is unwise to exclude from his consideration the very policy that was advocated by a person for whom everybody in the House had, and for whose memory all have, the greatest respect, yet it is precisely that which my right hon. Friend seems to he doing.
What do I mean by integration? Again, I quote from what my right hon. Friend said on 12 June, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne):
At present very little lies between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and councils, most of which sadly are not meeting, and which have little more power than parish councils."—[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 510.]
Let us start at the bottom. I would give to the 26 district councils, which my right hon. Friend is right to say have little more power than parish councils, modest additional powers. That is my first suggestion.

Ms. Clare Short: Which powers?

Mr. Gow: I said "modest additional powers"

Ms. Short:: Which powers?

Mr. Gow: We have been asked not to make too long a speech. I said "modest additional powers" for the 26 district councils, which my right hon. Friend rightly described on 12 June as having powers that at present are analogous to those of parish councils. So I say "modest additional powers".
That is my first suggestion. My second proposal is that there should he a regional council similar to a regional council in Scotland and analogous to a county council in England. The powers of such a regional or county council would not need to be identical to the powers of a regional council in Scotland or a county council in England.
My third suggestion is that legislation for Northern Ireland should be dealt with in this place and another place in the same way as we now deal with legislation for Scotland and for Wales.

Ms. Clare Short: It is different for Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Gow: Absolutely. That is why my right hon. Friend's use of the words "total harmonisation" is inappropriate, because we deal with Scotland and Wales differently.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend speaks about the methods of legislation in Northern Ireland as compared with Wales and Scotland, but does he bear in mind the fact that we sometimes legislate by primary legislation through public statute, and sometimes by way of Grand Committee, sometimes on the Floor of the House and sometimes in Committee? Can my hon. Friend be more precise about the sort of analogy that he would like to pursue between the way in which we legislate in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

Mr. Stephen Ross: rose—

Mr. Gow: I give way to the spokesman for the Liberal party.

Mr. Ross: What form of electoral system would the hon. Gentleman use to elect the county councils?

Mr. Gow: I shall deal with that straight away. It is not surprising that the solitary representative of the Liberal party, unaccompanied by his colleagues from the alliance, refers to his passion for proportional representation. It is to our deep regret that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is not seeking election next time. He will not be surprised to hear that I am strongly opposed to the system of proportional representation, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I belong to that school of thought which believes in majority rule under just law.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and I believe it is timely to remind my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we deal with Scottish legislation differently from English and Welsh legislation. For example, the separate Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1981 conferred the right to buy on Scottish people which had material differences from the Housing Act 1980 which was passed through the House by my predecessor.
Is my right hon. Friend excluding from h is consideration the possibility of giving modest additional powers to the 26 district councils? Is he excluding from his consideration the specific policy concerning regional and county councils, on which he and I fought and won the 1979 general election? Is he excluding the possibility of getting rid of legislation by Order in Council for Northern Ireland? If my right hon. Friend is excluding that possibility, because, as Secretary of State, he does not think it is the best way to govern the Province, and if he is excluding from his consideration the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, that is a very grievous statement.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend is aware that I agree with many of the ideas that he has put forward, but he has not dealt with one critical matter. Is he proposing, given the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, that a regional county council-type authority should also be a police authority? I fear that it could not be.

Mr. Gow: No, Sir, that is not my suggestion. It would be no part of my proposal — if my suggestions were followed—that the regional or county councils for the Province should also be the police authorities for the Province.
I should be deeply concerned if my right hon. Friend were to exclude, as he certainly appears to do, the possibility of integration regardless of what might be the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I have reason for concern. When the Anglo-Irish agreement was being fashioned, I have to assume that my right hon. Friend did care about the wishes of the minority but that he was careless—I use that word in its correct meaning—of the views of the majority. It may be that, when my right hon. Friend and some of his colleagues advised the Cabinet to enter into the Anglo-Irish agreement, he said to himself and perhaps to his colleagues, "Well, we may have a bit of trouble from some of the wilder elements in Northern Ireland but the majority of the Unionist people will acquiesce in this agreement." That may have been the view of my right hon. Friend.
In my opinion, the depth and strength of feeling in Northern Ireland on 19 June 1986 against the Anglo-Irish agreement is just as strong and deep as it was on 15 November 1985. I do not think my right hon. Friend has made any progress in persuading the people of Northern Ireland of something which I know he believes to be true—that the Anglo-Irish agreement will achieve peace, stability and reconciliation. I do not believe my right hon. Friend has been successful.
What concerned me at that time and what continues to concern me is that the Government believed that the Anglo-Irish agreement would be moderately acceptable to the majority. I have to assume that my right hon. Friend was surprised by the reaction in the Province. We know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was surprised because, in an article which appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 December 1985, as a result of an interview with Desmond McCartan, she said:
the reaction has been much worse than I expected. One is trying to find out why.
What is my right hon. Friend's answer? Will he say that, regardless of the growing opinion which, I believe, exists in the Province in favour of what I have described as integration — not absolute harmonisation nor total integration — it could equally be described as administrative devolution — the Government know best? Will the Government impose upon the people of Northern Ireland some kind of devolution or impose upon them the present system of direct rule regardless of their wishes?
I said that I wished to give way to my right hon. Friend so that I could ask him whether he was excluding from his consideration the kind of integration that I have described. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to tell the House his answer to that question.

Mr. Tom King: I have listened with interest to the points that my hon. Friend has made. The conclusions which he tried to draw at the end are in total conflict with what I have just said to the House.
I wrote down his words when he said that we would be seeking to impose some new solution—some devolution proposal on the people of the Province. He will accept precisely what I have said, which is that, so far from wishing to impose a decision on devolution, arrived at separately, we wished to enter into discussions to see whether it was possible to achieve a starting point.
My hon. Friend referred to my comments concerning total integration. I have made it clear that that was not a

possibility, but my hon. Friend has said that that is not what he has proposed. He said that he has never advocated total harmonisation—that is another possibility which I made clear I did not think was practicable. I have said that we are prepared to consider the possible ways in which the handling of legislation on other matters could be looked at in this House. I included a caveat about the route to integration which I believe—my hon. Friend draws his conclusions and I draw mine—would not be practical. The Government would not propose that; nor, I believe, would the House approve it.
These are important matters and my hon. Friend has made a serious speech about them. It has become clear that it is dangerous to get into the world of slogans. There are slogans about devolution and integration, and everyone assumes that they know what the other individual means. I sought to spell out the areas which I thought were unrealistic and the areas in which the Government wished to proceed.

Mr. Gow: I hope that my right hon. Friend now understands what I mean by integration, which I sometimes call administrative devolution.
This is an important debate. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will not exclude from their consideration of the options for Northern Ireland that option which in my judgment would provide both the surest safeguards and protection for constitutional Nationalists in Northern Ireland and the greatest reassurance for constitutional Unionists.

Mr. Clive Soley: Four years ago last Monday when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I represented the Labour Front Bench on Northern Ireland we said that a Labour Government would not have introduced the Northern Ireland Bill to set up the Assembly. We did not think that it was particularly workable, but we regarded it as a fair and honest attempt to do something about the problems of Northern Ireland. We specified that we did not think its chances of success were good. Four years later the Secretary of State has tabled an order to bring the Assembly to an end. It may be that much has happened in those four years, and I recognise that the Assembly lasted a little longer than I anticipated.
The Assembly has faced considerable difficulties and some of its achievements have also been considerable. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I gave evidence to its Committees to assist the Assembly in its work. It is important to consider why we seek to wind up the Assembly, and in doing so we come back to the central problem for the Government, which is stating their position on Northern Ireland.
As I have said on many occasions, both when I spoke on Northern Ireland and since I have moved to my Home Office brief, the problem is that everybody in Ireland, both in the north and the south, knows exactly what they want for the future of the border, but that successive British Governments have not known what they want. We now have a further difference in that the British-Irish agreement, as I prefer to call it, makes it more clear than previously that the British Government are happy to work towards a united Ireland and the Unionists know that.
Although I understand the politics that say that we must not talk about certain matters because it makes


difficult circumstances worse—I believe that that sort of politics rarely works—they are almost guaranteed to fail in this case because all the Unionists—the Democratic Unionists, the Official Unionists and all the other groups —know from the words and actions of the Government and the Labour party that the trend is towards a united Ireland. That is what makes the Unionist position so difficult.
If Unionist Members come to the House and participate, they will undermine their position. If they stay away, as they are at present doing except for the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), they will also undermine their position. That is why the Unionist parties are tempted to take to the streets and to attack the agreement. There they find the great unifier of hatred and fear of a united Ireland.
Yet that hatred and fear is more concentrated in certain parts of the Unionist parties than it is in Northern Ireland as a whole, and I believe that in recent years that hatred and fear has become less. Ordinary Unionists in the streets of Northern Ireland will now say, "If it is going to be a united Ireland, why don't we get it over and done with quickly?" They have said to me, "Since you have explained to us about human rights and joint citizenship, I suppose there are worse things." When one asks what they mean by worse things, they say, "We can't go on as we are, can we?" There is growing recognition in Northern Ireland that the island of Ireland is being treated as one political, economic and social entity, and that at the end of that road is a nation state. That is what we are moving towards and that is what the Unionists fear and are angry about.
Today there has already been talk of the family of the nation. That frequently occurs in politics generally, but perhaps more than ever in relation to the politics of Northern Ireland. The family in this context is taken to be that of the United Kingdom — England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State got into a little difficulty, which he got out of well, when he referred to the political parties not organising in Northern Ireland. He got into some difficulty about whether the link was cultural, political or whatever. The truth is that there is a great deal of cultural overlap, not only between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but between the United Kingdom and southern Ireland. That has always been true, but for historical reasons, which are long and complex and which none of us would perhaps ever agree on entirely, there is a fundamentally different political system in Northern Ireland, and Ireland has been divided.
Let us examine further what we mean by a family of nations. As the Secretary of State rightly noted, there is something profoundly odd and different about the position of Northern Ireland in this family of the United Kingdom. Nothing makes that difference more clear than the insistence of the peoples of Northern Ireland, above all the Unionists, to insert in Acts and statutes over many years that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom so long as it wishes to remain so.
If we pursue the analogy of the family a little further and envisage walking into our family home at night to find that one member of the family has put a notice on his door saying, "I am a member of the family too, unless I choose to go", the meaning becomes clear. It means that that member feels uncertain of his position in the family. That is why I have always said that when Unionist parties insist on that phrase being used, they undermine and embellish the weakness of their political position. That is why the

family argument is so profoundly dangerous to them. It is an argument, not about families but about political power and identity and the economic problems that stem from that.
We need to begin a discussion about how we move toward a united Ireland. Let us consider how the position has changed in recent years. In 1979 when I first entered the House I did not get involved in the politics of Northern Ireland until the end of that year, and about a year later I moved to the Front Bench. Between 1980 and 1981 it was frequently said to me inside and outside the House that whenever I talked about the unity of Ireland I was encouraging terrorism. Nobody says that now. That argument has gone. Indeed, in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill, when the right hon. Member for South Down said that terrorism fed on hope, I said that it did not, but that it fed on despair. Whether we consider the terrorism in Northern Ireland or the terrorism which I fear we are about to see in southern Africa, it is clear that terrorism is founded on despair of the political system. It has often been said that the political system of any country, for all its warts, is the alternative to war. That is how we settle our disputes. Terrorism has done immense damage to the body politic of this country and to the body politic of Ireland. It has ripped apart not just the lives of people but political democracy and the economic hopes of people on both sides of the Irish sea.
The collapse of the Assembly is an example of what I meant in the past when I referred to there being no positive power in Northern Ireland. The problem for both the Republicans and the Unionists in Northern Ireland is that their powers are negative. They can prevent things from happening but they can rarely initiate anything.
It was a little paternalistic of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to accuse the Unionists and the Republicans of being unable to talk together. One group wants to take away the national identity of the other. The Unionist wants to take away the national identity of the Republican, and vice versa. As the right hon. Member for South Down pointed out, if the SDP and the Liberal party cannot agree on Polaris, why on earth should we expect the two groups in Northern Ireland suddenly and relatively easily to sit down and discuss together their future, which brings into question their national identity and, to some extent, their religious identity? Religion, or nationalism tainted by religion, is a profoundly powerful force. It is far stronger than social or economic class. I say that with regret, as a Socialist. Religion has a profound effect upon the political system and upon people's lives.
There is a way forward. It is the same as it has always been. The way forward is to open up discussions with Dublin. If it is true that in Northern Ireland there is only negative power, equally it is true that positive power lies in London and Dublin acting together. What has stood out very clearly during the six years that I have been interested and involved in the politics of Northern Ireland is that it is crying out for leadership. What stands out now in Northern Ireland is splintering of the political parties, both Republicans and Unionists. The splintering of the political entity of a state—or semi-state, as Northern Ireland has been in some ways—is an indication of a lack of leadership towards a common goal.
I have said before that we think of the various parties and groups in Northern Ireland as being strongly united They are not. They only appear to be strongly united. Even in the paramilitary groups, the image of unity is far less


strong than we believe it to be. If we consider the number of Republicans who have been killed by the paramilitary groups on the Republican side and the number of Unionists who have been killed by the paramilitary groups on the Unionist side, we find that in each case the number is greater than those who have been killed by the security forces. Imagine how strange it would seem if I said to the House that during the second world war the British armed forces killed more British people than were killed by the Axis forces. It would be nonsense. The internal splintering tells us so much about what has happened to politics in Northern Ireland. They are being ripped apart and they will continue to be ripped apart until London and Dublin provide strong leadership.
One of the reasons for my qualified welcome of the British-Irish agreement was precisely because it started out on that road. It is an important road. I regret that the Government were not more open about it. Instead they fed paranoia. Paranoia abounds in Northern Ireland. People fear being sold out.
The Secretary of State rightly referred to the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) who, at the time, expressed his concern about the agreement. I remember that the hon. Member for Upper Bann also said, when the agreement was announced, that if he had known that this was at the end of the road he would never have led his people to believe that the British Government would not betray them. Those were not his exact words, but they are very near to being his exact words. He was saying that the Unionists now know that the British will sell them out.
I do not like the word "sell-out". I remember that over and over again the Unionists said that they believed that they had cemented their place in the union. Why did they refer to the role of Northern Ireland during the first and second world wars? Why did they refer to the blood of men in the Northern Ireland regiments that had been shed during the first world war in the battle of the Somme? It was because they believed that they had cemented for themselves a place in the heart of their mistress. Alas, 50, 60 or 70 years later their mistress is doing exactly what she did then. She is saying, "All right, up to a point, but keep your distance. We will never, ever treat you as a normal part of the United Kingdom because you are not a normal part of the United Kingdom." That is why the Unionists feel so deeply betrayed.
However, people can change their political identity, and fit into new structures and new institutions. This House has the ability to bring that about, but only if the question is discussed openly. One of the reasons for my sadness about politics in this day and age is that people believe that we should not discuss difficult questions because they lead to arguments and fights. However, it is essential that we should discuss difficult questions. What everybody recognises as a difficult and unanswered question will not go away. It will stay there, and will continue to nag at us and aggravate us.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that in many areas the economic, political and social systems of the north and the south could be integrated. He was quite right. I have mentioned many of them in the past. I have referred in particular to agriculture, because a large part of the economy of both the north and the south is founded on

agriculture. The potential for the integration of food processing, biotechnology and education is very great. Colleges and universities in the north have spare capacity, whereas the south is looking for student places. There are so many areas in which integration could be expanded and built upon. In doing so, we should bring the people of the north together with the south. We should also increase and improve the link between Britain and Northern Ireland. That link is being forced further apart by the divisions within Northern Ireland. British failure to resolve our position in Northern Ireland has led to strains between Britain and Northern Ireland, although they are two nations which ought to be, and which historically have been, very close. That link must be rebuilt.
Finally, we must look at the position in which we now find ourselves by our failure to address the Northern Ireland problem since the division of Ireland in the early part of the century. More than 2,000 people have been killed and thousands have been injured. The lives of their families have been ripped apart. The economy of Ireland, in particular Northern Ireland, is under-developed at best and in tatters at worst.
Let us consider what we have done to our own democracy. As a result of the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, for the first time since the medieval period a member of the Government has the power to exclude a person from one part of the United Kingdom. That has not been known since medieval times in Britain. Also, we have to walk into the House of Commons through various screening devices. There are wire fences around the House of Commons. People have to be searched. This change has been brought about during the last eight or nine years. It has had an effect on the legislation that is passed by this House. Look at what the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which we shall be renewing again later tonight, has done to our reputation overseas. This House, which is the model for democracies around the world, has allowed, because it has failed to address so many of the problems that have arisen due to the division of Ireland, its democracy to be undermined to the extent that Britain has been found guilty before the European Court of Human Rights on more occasions than any other European country, and many of those convictions have been the result of problems or convictions stemming from Northern Ireland. There is a way forward. The people of Northern Ireland are much more able and willing to move than we think. We need to give them leadership and to recognise that that leadership has to come from London and Dublin.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient for the House to know that the Front Bench will seek to catch my eye at 7.20. A number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and perhaps they would make their own calculations.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Inevitably, this debate is a post mortem about the Assembly and, to some extent, it is also a post mortem about all the other initiatives that the Government have taken since 1972 in their attempt to find a political working arrangement for Northern Ireland. On looking back, it may be seen that the


easy suspension of Stormont was one of the worst mistakes made about the government of the Province during all the years that it has existed as part of the United Kingdom.
It behoves all of us to ask ourselves why each of the initiatives has failed and failed so dismally. I do not suppose there is any one answer and certainly some of the speeches from Opposition Members are pertinent to those failures. The attempt to bend democracy that we first saw in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and the creation of a power-sharing executive never really enjoyed the full-hearted support of the majority in Northern Ireland. That executive finally foundered as a result of the Sunningdale conference and the setting up of an All-Ireland Council. Those things showed that the attempt to force democracy to work because it seemed the most politically apt way to approach the problem was not likely to produce the results that we wanted.
The idea of power sharing has always remained somewhere in the Northern Ireland Office and it came alive again in 1982. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), believed that even if power sharing was a phrase that he dare not use—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is leaving the Chamber because I shall refer to him in the course of my speech.

Mr. Hume: Very well, I shall stay.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney thought that he ought to seek something that looked like power sharing, and he decided to do it by introducing an Assembly that could devolve powers to itself, the powers that Stormont had once discharged, if 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly gave their assent. He knew and the hon. Member for Foyle knew that that depended upon the presence in the Assembly of the hon. Member for Foyle and the other members of his party. They would have to be in the Assembly if the Assembly was to be effective.
I give full credit to the hon. Member for Foyle because he made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that he would have nothing to do with that Assembly and that he did not intend to take the members of his party to it, though he would fight the elections. That meant that the Assembly with its 70 per cent. veto—for that is what it was — would never have devolved powers because the hon. Member for Foyle did not choose that that should happen. No doubt he took that decision for good political reasons because, like the rest of us, he is a party politician and knows where his political muscle comes from. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for that because every hon. Member knows about these things. He knew that if he joined the Assembly he would not improve his political standing in the Province. By the same token, in order to improve his political standing, he stayed out of the Assembly.
There was another thought in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and I hope that he will forgive me because I am reading his mind. He may tell me that I am talking nonsense but that is his prerogative. The other thought in his mind was that the Assembly was not what he was after anyway. He liked the idea of an Irish dimension and looming into his sights was the concept of the new Ireland forum and the possibility that somehow, unbelievably, the Government of the Republic could he brought into a

dialogue with Her Majesty's Government. It was an ambitious project and to set the Assembly beside it in comparison was to set a minnow beside a whale. He set about his task, and brilliantly achieved his objective. I give him full credit for that because he pursued his political aims and did what any one of us would wish to do— he achieved a remarkable political victory.

Mr. Hume: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He does not need to read my mind because I can tell him clearly what the position was. Ten years is not a very long time in a place like Northern Ireland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the 10 years before 1982 three attempts were made to devolve powers to Northern Ireland, and they were all based on fundamentally the same approach by a Government in this House. That approach was, essentially, power sharing acceptable to both sections of the community. Those three attempts all failed.
The most recent attempt was in 1979 and it was made by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. At that conference we said to the Unionist parties, "Since you say power sharing does not work and will lead you into a united Ireland against your will, we will agree to it for the life of two Assemblies in order to demonstrate both points of view." They said, "There are no circumstances in which we will ever share power with you." Three years later another Secretary of State decided to do the same thing.
What sort of credibility would we have had with the electorate if we had accepted the same guidelines that we accepted three times in the previous decade when they were brought in for the fourth time? We said to the Secretary of State, "If you can get the Unionists to accept your guidelines this time, we will become involved." The Unionists rejected the guidelines before the Assembly election took place, thereby making it clear that the Assembly would not work. What did we do? We did the intelligent, honest, political thing and asked, "Why are they saying no? They said no because they were afraid of a united Ireland destroying their heritage. We then turned to the parties in the Republic and said, "Join us in showing that our future for Ireland threatens no one."
We followed the logic of the situation in which we found ourselves and we do not apologise to anyone for that. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) rightly says, the position that we find ourselves in today arises because of that, because we are facing up to the reality of the problem, which is about the interlocking relationships between the peoples of these islands and not just about the relationships in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle for making such a powerful intervention. I respect him for that and, as I have said, I respect him for his political ability. I think he would have to agree that, despite what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said about the Unionists not sharing power in fact, they have worked for power sharing. They did that in 1973 when they helped to set up the power-sharing executive. Mr. Brian Falkner led that executive, and they worked for power sharing again in 1982 when they and the Alliance party went to the Assembly. The hon. Member for Foyle and his party did not go.

Mr. Hume: For a very good reason.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Foyle says that it is the Unionists who have held up power sharing. I differ with him on that. He made his political judgment and decided that going to the Assembly did not suit his book. By creating the Anglo-Irish agreement at Hillsborough he must have known that he was carrying out the final act, giving the coup de grace to the Assembly, because once that treaty was in place the hon. Gentleman had created something else. He had created a new imbalance in Northern Ireland politics and, inevitably, that has led to the withdrawal of the Unionists from this House, and from the Assembly.
In his moment of triumph, when the Hillsborough agreement was signed, the hon. Member for Foyle could have taken an opportunity to give new strength to the Assembly and to the concept of community government in the Province. He could have led his supporters back into the Assembly, and, even if he did not agree with the Assembly as it was, he would have shown his willingness, having won his great victory over the Anglo-Irish agreement, to work for a community government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not choose to do so. Perhaps he was on a political high of a sort that few of us will ever experience. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I am accusing him of doing something that was wrong, for I am accusing him of bad judgment. Whatever is the case, he has sentenced the Assembly to death and each one of us to thinking again about the political future of the Province.

Mr. Hume: Did the hon. Member attend the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement? I made a clear and specific offer, and in every week since I have repeated it, to the Unionists, to sit down and discuss devolution in Northern Ireland without preconditions. I want to spell out to them in detail how we see the future and I want to hear from them what they see in our view that threatens them and, for the first time, how they see the future—I know how they see the past.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was at the debate. I interrupted during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I sat here for two days but, sadly, was not called. However, I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the Anglo-Irish treaty is fatally flawed. He knows that it cannot work effectively without the involvement of the majority community in the Province. He knows that, because that majority has never been consulted about the agreement, it is not exceeding its rights in saying that it will not work with it. It is doing no more nor less, I suspect, than the hon. Gentleman and his supporters would have done if they had been left out of an agreement of that gravity about their future.
Because of the flaw, each of us has the responsibility to try to find a way to put back that which was taken away. It is inevitable that, however important we may consider the Anglo-Irish treaty to be—no one would like to see it work more than me—we have to get those round-the-table talks. If the price of getting them is to set the treaty to one side for six months or whatever, then it is not too high a price to be paid. Nor is it impossible to do so. By the Vienna convention on treaties of 1971, articles 57 or 61, it is possible for a foreign country to set a treaty to one side or suspend it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will discuss

this matter with the Taoiseach and say to him that, in our view, a community government in Northern Ireland that represented all the strands of that society would be a greater political gain than an Anglo-Irish treaty that we cannot enforce and that carries with it the seeds of strife, bitterness and violence stretching into the future.
I agree with all those hon. Members who have said that, in the end, Northern Ireland must govern itself. That is as it has to be. No English Secretary of State representing an English constituency can govern a province when his own party is not represented in it. Nor can those who come from Northern Ireland ever expect to have powers in this House. They cannot. It has been said, and I know it is true because I have worked and served in Northern Ireland, that it is a place apart. Its politics are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. But it is possible to create a community government, albeit with Westminster making the laws. If the treaty were set aside for six months or nine months — not an open-ended period — then political leaders such as the hon. Member for Foyle and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), and perhaps the Church leaders, could come together and realise that this is their chance to create something that would work, not something imposed by Westminster but something agreed among themselves. That gamble would be worth taking and I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that is the line that the Government should take.

Ms. Clare Short: Various hon. Members have asked why all the constitutional initiatives that have been taken since 1969 have failed. Others have tried to suggest new constitutional initiatives, be they integration, partial integration or some version of the local government structures that we have on the mainland. With respect to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), his approach and that of all other hon. Members fails to take account of the lessons through which we have lived in Northern Ireland's recent past.
No constitutional mechanism and political structure will civilise Northern Ireland, bring equality to its people, make it a reasonable place in which to live or cause both communities to be able to live well together, unless there is a will to that end. Unfortunately, there is not that will in the Unionist community, which is why there has been continuous failure. They want domination. not equality. They do not want an end to discrimination or the equal provision of the local government services to which all people should be entitled. No constitutional dream or aspiration put together by the most clever constitutional lawyer in the world could put in that good will if it were not there. It is now clear to most hon. Members and to the people of Britain that Northern Ireland will never work because that good will is never there.
We have a new era. The people of Britain are completely exasperated. That feeling is reflected among hon. Members, who speak less openly in the Chamber than they do elsewhere about the exasperation with the Unionists, Northern Ireland and the way in which they are behaving. The people on the streets and buses speak more and more openly and their feeling is reflected in opinion polls. It is a growing and mounting feeling that Britain is doing no good in Northern Ireland and should get out because it is a waste of time, resources and lives. The British people do not want us to stay there any longer.
The Anglo-Irish agreement is and will always be an enormous historical turning point. Historians will see that clearly. The Unionists are right to say that, inevitably, the agreement will lead to an united Ireland. Their behaviour, their intransigence, their unreasonableness, their unwillingness to work with the agreement, have pushed the British people around that historical corner into a determination to withdraw from Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland could have worked, following partition, if the Unionist community had behaved differently. Of course the Republicans did not want to see their country partitioned, but if there had been equality and not discrimination, and if Catholics and Protestants could have lived side by side and respected each other and their cultural and historical differences, things would have been different. People can live like that within the rest of Britain—that is the experience of my life. I come from a Catholic family that originated in South Armagh but I grew up in Birmingham and experienced full equality in a way that my cousins who still live in Northern Ireland could not.
Northern Ireland might have worked. Its people might have said that they were happy with the border, or equally the border might have faded away because the Unionists did not need it, because the two communities lived so happily in the north. Similarly, the Anglo-Irish agreement could have worked for the purposes for which the Government intended it — to help Northern Ireland to survive longer and to help generate co-operation and respect between the two communities. But the Unionists would not have it. They will not use any proposal that comes from the politics of Great Britain, to which they claim to be loyal. Each time their intransigence comes out; they say no to everything. They want to destroy every structure and every proposal. There can be agreement only if they are willing to give equality and respect to the massive minority community constituted by the Nationalists in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Winnick: Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), whose speech I listened to with much interest, are not realistic? He said that, if the Anglo-Irish agreement were suspended for six or nine months, the parties in Northern Ireland, and perhaps the Church leaders, might reach agreement, without it being imposed from Westminster. Have not years of history and experience shown that that is not possible? There is no way in which the Unionist and Nationalist parties will reach agreement, for reasons that my hon. Friend has been explaining. Therefore, does she agree that the agreement was an advance and should be maintained, and that in no circumstances should the Government give way on it?

Ms. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newbury were followed, it would be a complete disaster for Northern Ireland because Unionist intransigence and unreasonableness would have been victorious once again. The lesson it would teach the Unionists is that they should always be unreasonable and intransigent, that they should never give an inch, that they should never give respect or equality to the other community, and they will always win. I am afraid that that has been the experience of their history. They have to learn that it will not win. They must be faced

down. I think that that is happening and that they are learning a bitter historical lesson that they will not get their own way this time, that the British people will not back off, and that they have to face up to the fact that they will not get their way again.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If the hon. Lady has not already done so, she should read the report of the Northern Irish Convention to discover how much common ground there was among Unionists, the SDLI' and the Alliance. She will be surprised. She will find that her speech is unbelievably prejudiced.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman now resorts to abuse. I respect the sincerity with which he made his speech, but his reading of history and of experience in Northern Ireland is wrong. I have explained why. If he simply wants to abuse me, it is no use my seeking to answer his point.

Mr. Mallon: In the interests of honesty and accuracy, I must point out that there cannot be equality, which is the real basis of what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been saying, unless there is justice. The process of justice in the north of Ireland is not in the hands of the Unionists but in the hands of this Parliament. If we want equality in the north of Ireland, we must get it through the process of justice. It is on the Floor of this House and this Parliament and Government that we look for justice. Let us not blame the Unionists for that, although there is plenty for which we can blame them.

Ms. Short: I do not agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The problems about the lack of justice and equal treatment before the law arise partly because some people in Northern Ireland are willing to use force to advance their political views. Their willingness to use force arises from the discrimination and inequality with which that community has been treated. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many reforms are overdue and could be made by the House, but the whole answer does not lie here. Part of the problem that the House faces in Northern Ireland arises from the attitude of the Unionist community.
I want to put on record clearly my reading of the current situation; I believe that history will vindicate this reading. The absolute unreasonableness of Northern Ireland Unionism, shown clearly over the Anglo-Irish agreement, means that from now the determination of Britain to withdraw from Northern Ireland will grow. I think that most hon. Members know in their hearts that that is right. When we seek new structures we must bear that in mind. We must look for structures that can lead to co-operation between North and South and among all the communities of Ireland. Britain is pouring resources into the Army, the building of prisons and the employment of more and more policemen and prison officers. Those resources could be poured into building creative things that would make a better new Ireland and create jobs and services for all the communities. We should move as rapidly as we can to the construction of constitutional opportunities for that new Ireland to be built.
The real answer that will bring lasting benefits to all the people of Ireland is that new Ireland without Britain where the people have to live together in equality. I believe that it is coming soon because of the way in which the Unionist community in Northern Ireland has exposed itself to the British people so clearly in recent months.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Although I admire her sincerity, I do not share her vision or her analysis, particularly of the Unionist intransigence, as she called it.
I regret the disorder. Had I been here at the time, I believe that I would have voted for the original legislation. I regret that we are debating the order because it means that the Assembly has failed. The order was inevitable because the Assembly was being abused. In those circumstances, it was pointless to continue it, but it was not a total failure. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in its scrutiny capacity it achieved a certain amount of success, with 75 per cent. of its recommendations being accepted.
One reason why the Assembly failed was the failure of the SDLP to participate in it. To give the SDLP its due, its members always made it clear that they would not take their seats. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) suggested that the SDLP should have gone into the Assembly post agreement. That would not have been realistic when the Assembly was being abused by other Members and was being hi-jacked for political protest. In those circumstances, I do not think that anyone could have expected SDLP Members to take their seats, so one cannot blame them for that.
I was heartened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 12 June when he said that he wanted to sit down to talk about devolution. I was heartened also by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in reply to my intervention. I believe that the hon. Gentlemen want to participate in devolution. When a new order is brought before the House to give effect to new elections, there may be a possibility of the essential prerequisite of all-party agreement on participation in the Assembly. Having heard what the hon. Gentlemen have said, I think that there is every possibility of them agreeing to go into an Assembly in the future.
There is scope for a new order. Do we want to resurrect the Assembly? I have always been in favour of devolution. I have always been suspicious of total integration and even of integration such as was talked about by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) because that approach would irretrievably alienate the minority in the North.
My preferred option has always been one of devolution. Northern Ireland has had devolution for the best part of five decades. It has not worked because there has not been the necessary element of justice or power sharing within it. But there is scope for devolution. I believe that that is the only way to involve the minority in public life in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) talked about Unionist intransigence over home rule earlier in the century. It is ironic that were it not for that Unionist intransigence—the minority intransigence—there would be a united Ireland with home rule within the United Kingdom. Many Conservative Members have that dream. I should like to see a united Ireland. However, it would be a different united Ireland from that envisaged by the hon. Member for Ladywood. I should like to see a united Ireland governed by Dublin with some form of home rule

in Belfast. It would be a united Ireland with some form of loyalty to the Crown, perhaps as a dominion, certainly within NATO. That is why the devolution argument is so important. I believe that it is the only way forward. The only way the Unionists in the north would ever accept a united Ireland would be if that essential attachment to the Crown were retained in some form.
The Anglo-Irish agreement is the key issue; indeed, it is the only issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I visited Ireland recently. One of the things that struck me, as it struck my hon. Friend, was the deep sense of betrayal, outrage and dismay. I sensed it in moderate, sensible industrialists— ordinary people from all walks of life. I came across it also at 1 o'clock this afternoon when I met the Minister of State and a party of industrialists. These moderate, sensible industrialists, who are at the sharp end of wealth creation, spoke about betrayal in a way they have not done before. They feel strongly about the agreement, but they feel even more strongly about the fact that they were not consulted before it was reached. I am reminded of a quotation from Hosea, chapter 4:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou halt rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee".
I believe that the cardinal mistake made by the Government whom I support was that they did not consult beforehand.
The Secretary of State made it clear that the Government will not renege on the agreement. Therefore, we must go forward on the basis that the Government will stand firm. I believe that there is only one way forward for Unionist parliamentary representatives. They must return to Westminster. I was heartened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in that respect. They have a good case to argue, but they are not here to present it. The Prime Minister invited them to come and talk about devolution and the way forward for Northern Ireland. She invited them to discuss the future of the Assembly, but they turned down that offer. She invited them to talk about the conduct of Northern Ireland business in the House. That invitation was confirmed only a few hours ago by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would like to see major changes. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give us more details of what changes he wishes to see. Condemning Northern Ireland business to the early hours of the morning, incredibly anti-social hours, as happens now, is not heartening or encouraging.
We must face up to reality. I believe that there is a chance that the agreement can be absorbed into the democratic process, because the Government in power now are different in character from the Government in power in 1974. At that time, a new Government, with a small majority, came to power. The will to persevere just was not there. Today, the position is quite different. We have an extremely determined and strong Prime Minister. She will not give in.

Ms. Clare Short: She is on the way out.

Mr. Bellingham: I doubt that.
Another reason why I do not think that all hope is lost in terms of absorbing the agreement in the democratic process is that it provides an incentive to all politicians in Northern Ireland. Article 4 makes it clear that if there can be devolution in Northern Ireland, on a basis which secures widespread acceptance throughout the community, the role of the intergovernmental conference will be


reduced, and certain functions that it is considering will not be apportioned to it. There is an incentive to make devolution work. I believe that Unionist politicians will see that there is an incentive to get devolution going.
There is another reason why it is in the interests of Unionist politicians to make the agreement work. There has not been much discussion about that, although there will probably be some later on. I refer to security, especially cross-border security. If it becomes apparent to the vast majority of Ulster people that there is progress on the security front and in the fight against terrorism, and if the people of Northern Ireland see that two of the factors in the progress are the agreement and the enhanced cooperation between the two Governments, a great deal of pressure will be placed on Unionist politicians. Last Thursday's events were a move in the right direction.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State was able to say that the talks that took place that Tuesday represented a significant landmark in co-operation. He said he was satisfied that we are embarking on a policy of much closer co-operation than there has ever been between police north and south of the border. Those are brave words if they are not true. I believe that they are true. From meetings which I have had recently with the RUC, I know that there is every indication that there has been a significant move in the right direction in the crucial fight against terrorism—against the enemy of all Ireland.
I say to the hon. Member for Foyle, before he leaves the Chamber—it is the second time he has been on his way out, to where I do not know— that Conservative Members feel that there is a need for his party to promote full-hearted support for the security forces in the minority community. Anything that he can do to boost the confidence of those security forces would be welcomed. That is probably what he intends to do. However, some assurances in that direction would be welcome. They would be welcomed by hon. Members who supported the agreement and those who have supported his conduct in the House over the past year or so. I ask the Minister whether he has any evidence of an increase in the commitment by the Republic Government in terms of resources for border security and border effort. I should be grateful if he would respond to that.
I recognise the pressure on our Unionist colleagues. Recently, at a meeting with a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I pointed out that the patience of my constituents was wearing thin and that I strongly believed that the word "loyalist" was being abused. He said, "Do you really expect me to put a noose around my neck just to put a smile on the faces of your constituents?" I know that the hard men are lurking in the shadows and the pressure that Unionist people are under. Surely the place of that member of the DUP is here at Westminster, so that he can put his case.
For example, during the crucial run-up to the decision on the Ministry of Defence contract for the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, where were the Belfast Members of Parliament lobbying Ministers and their fellow Members? They were not here. Where did their constituents want them to be—in Belfast demonstrating and protesting, or here in the corridors of power? I say to them, "For goodness' sake, you have a case to put. You cannot go on saying that the agreement is simply the result of terrorism succeeding." If they say that, how can they expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give in to another form

of blackmail? That argument flies in their faces. Their place is here. I urge them to return here and to argue their case with us.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I would not wish to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) throughout his arguments, but I am sure that the House has taken note of his last comments on the absence of Unionist Members of Parliament, with the exception of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
One page of what I think is the last booklet from the Unionist camp—"Why Unionists Say No"—includes a quote from "The English Constitution":
The moment we distinctly conceive that the House of Commons is mainly and above all an elective assembly, we at once perceive that party is of its essence … party is inherent in it, is bone of its bone and breath of its breath.
I wonder why the Unionists would wish to quote such an important man as Walter Bagehot in relation to the House of Commons yet not take their seats here.
This debate has been one of the most interesting that I have heard in the Chamber in the past three years. It has highlighted the fundamental problem that faces the Unionist camp in Northern Ireland. That problem was amply reflected by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who sought to draw the Secretary of State on matters such as the administrative devolution of Northern Ireland and total integration. When I was a younger lawyer, we talked about negligence and gross negligence. A famous judge once said that they were both the same, except one had the epithet added. I surmise that the difference between integration and total integration is about the same.
We have not heard a great deal about an independent Northern Ireland, which is surprising. That proposal has been gathering pace in certain quarters, and I shall, therefore, not devote too many of my remarks to it. The difficulty faced by the Unionist leaders is that they seem not to be able to face up to the reality of the community in which they live. They cannot shed the vestiges of a colonial past. Because the Unionists cannot define a common line or goal, it is hardly surprising that the British public cannot understand what the Unionists want within the framework of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West touched on that aspect when he referred to one of his constituents.
The Unionists, in their own peculiar context, have created, if I may use the phrase from the World cup, "space and movement". It is a space into which others are likely to move in order to fill the vacuum. The movement in this country is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, away from a belief that Northern Ireland has anything to do with the rest of the United Kingdom.
If I may interpret the Unionist position, it is essentially one of hostility to the Anglo-Irish agreement. That hostility is so irrational that, in the end, Unionism has punished itself. Bernard Shaw once said "If your face is dirty, you wash it; you don't cut off your head." The Unionists appear to have lopped off their heads without even looking into the mirror. They have set aside the Catherwood proposals, by which they set great store. They have wound up the devolution committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They have declined further to scrutinize


legislation that comes before the House by way of Orders in Council. The Secretary of State referred to that work, saying that 75 per cent. of the Assembly's recommendations had been agreed by the House and by the Government. We feel that the Secretary of State might be somewhat beleaguered in his position on the Treasury Bench, but he has told the House and the country that he is an avowed Unionist. Even as early, or as late, as last November, he was urging the Unionists to make full use of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He told a meeting at Cambridge university that the Assembly was one of the best ways in which the Unionists could continue to have their views heard in London. That advice went unheeded. Apparently, the Unionists have not heeded the advice that he gave on 12 June to the House when he urged
the Unionist parties to return to this House to argue their case and to take up the offer of the Prime Minister to discuss …devolution … a round table conference; the future of the Assembly; arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster. —[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 505–6.]
The hon. Member for Eastbourne made cogent and well-constructed arguments when he challenged the Secretary of State to say what he thought of devolution, regional councils, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman told the House tonight, as he did on 12 June, that there could be talks without preconditions. I always understood that "talks without preconditions" meant exactly what it said. The Secretary of State clearly said that there can be no way forward for Unionists in Northern Ireland or for Northern Ireland on the route of integration. We welcome and support that statement.
The House must ask itself in these circumstances and in view of the Unionists' position why the Unionists have turned their backs on the proposals of Sir Frederick Catherwood who, when he published the last report of the devolution committee, made a call
To open negotiations on structures for devolved government on these bases and to consider practical amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
The bases to which he referred were devolved Government with a committee system, an executive and a Bill of rights —all, of course, built on a Unionist majority of some 70 per cent. in the Assembly. The only novel feature in a proposal which effectively would have meant a return to majority rule, devolved Government—in other words, "back to the future" — was a proposal to allow the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit in judgment on any measure which the minority community might think discriminatory.
Of course, that was a Freudian slip by Sir Frederick. We have long held the view that Northern Ireland is our last colony. It has been a colony with its own Parliament and governor, its own right to raise taxation, where Great Britain was responsible for external defence and for an annual subsidy to supplement public expenditure, but where this Parliament had no say in its internal affairs.
It was a colony unique in British history which had the right to send 12 Members of Parliament to Westminister, but they played no role here, participated in no Government, answered no questions on behalf of their constituents and put no questions to Ministers because their Government was elsewhere across the Irish sea. They had their Government in Northern Ireland. They simply

exercised a watching brief, ensuring that Unionism was not eventually subjected to those pursuing the course of a united Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As a matter of fact, under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 the House had full and unrestricted powers of legislation in Northern Ireland. The House did not exercise its rights and duties in respect of Northern Ireland for many decades because of a ruling of the Chair that it ought to be treated as if it were a dominion. That was not the consequence of the constitution of 1920.

Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of history, will know that a Privy Council decision in 1924 on the boundaries between North and South was interpreted in the House as meaning that the House had no responsibility and would not discuss legislation as it relates to Northern Ireland. That continued until 1969.
I shall briefly return to the proposals of Sir Fredrick Catherwood, which said that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the one to which I have just referred, had to be the final arbiter in matters which might relate to discrimination in Northern Ireland. If those proposals had been accepted, we would have placed Northern Ireland back into the context of a colony in the same position as other colonies and former colonies which still refer to the Privy Council as a final court of appeal.
We are not entirely sure who buried the Catherwood proposals. Have they been lost under the weight of the Anglo-Irish agreement or have they been jettisoned by the Unionists themselves who are turning away from the concept of a devolved Government? If they are turning away, how sincere were they in their document "The Way Forward" which was a Unionist response to the proposals in the All-Ireland Forum? That document stated:
The Ulster Unionist Party takes the view that some form of devolved Government is necessary for Northern Ireland. In only one part of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland, are major services subject to no real democratic control.
That commitment has apparently been washed out to a sea of lost opportunity by the Unionist reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement. The Unionists are wont to rely on the so-called justice of their cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood referred to that. That means that having had their way in the past they will be able to have their way in the future, to turn their back on history, the lack of consensus in Northern Ireland and the continuous and continuing erosion of civil liberties within a minority community. To continue with the sea metaphor that I used earlier, King Canute could not turn back the tide, and he never believed that he could. He simply went down to the beach to prove his advisers false. The Unionists can no more turn the tide to a recognition of minority rights any more than King Canute could. They should accept the Anglo-Irish agreement and stop trying to reverse what has already come about.
I wanted to speak about an independent Northern Ireland. That concept has been floated. It was looked at by the national executive committee of the Labour party in 1981. No one was particularly interested in it at that time. The consequences of such a possibility are so remote that perhaps I should not go into it now. Essentially, an independent Northern Ireland would mean the creation of a non-viable state. A majority for such a state would not


be found within the six counties because two of those counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh, are already Republican in their majority. The forbearance of those in the north who consider themselves part of the Republic would be overstrained by the creation of an independent Protestant state and it could hardly be considered to be in the national interest of Great Britain.
How could an independent Northern Ireland exist economically? In this important debate it is necessary to lay to rest the prospect that somehow there could be an independent Northern Ireland, dependent, nevertheless, on our country which puts in about £1,500 million, inclusive of social security payments. Therefore, I doubt whether that concept will go far.
We have to treat the concept of integration seriously, and I believe that we do. On that matter I refer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down. He has long put forward a view of integration with the rest of the United Kingdom. He has an able and, if I may say, powerful supporter in the hon. Member for Eastbourne. The right hon. Member for South Down has been representing a Northern Irish constituency since 1974. In that time he has sought to bridge the gap in Unionist thinking whereby they wish to return to the Stormont days of the Protestant ascendency and also insist that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom. They remind me of Marie Antionette who, being apprised of the fact that the peasants had no bread, suggested they might try brioche. With the utmost respect to the right hon. Member for South Down, the general Unionist proposition is one of having both bread and brioche at the same time, that is to say — to borrow a phrase that has been used tonight — having administrative devolution and total integration at the same time, or, in my words, it means wishing to be treated as a colony and as a part of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for South Down has taken the view that in order better to preserve the Protestant ascendency there should be full integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. He wishes to take a series of steps forward so that that aspect of Northern Irish rule can be continued while at the same time there can be integrity of Northern Ireland with Great Britain. Tonight we heard the proposals of the hon. Member for Eastbourne who was seeking to put forward solutions which would harmonise that idea of integration at the same time as the idea of devolution.
The right hon. Member for South Down has protested in the past at the way in which we have handled our Northern Irish legislation. That has come up on a number of occasions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), in private meetings last year with the leadership of the Unionists, proposed that we should move towards altering the treatment of this legislation. Those discussions were an early victim of the Anglo-Irish agreement because they did not get very far.
There is some seduction in the view of the right hon. Member for South Down because, for as long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—it has remained so since 1921 notwithstanding the multitude of aspirations for Irish unity—for as long as there is direct rule from Westminster, as there is for Wales and Scotland and England, why should the legislation affecting Northern Ireland be treated any differently? Why should there not be the appropriate Northern Ireland Standing

Committee or Select Committee to analyse legislation or issues affecting Northern Ireland so that they can be debated before they come to the Floor of the House? That is a matter of logic. I believe that to proceed to some kind of variation on how we do business here would be welcome to hon. Members. The Secretary of State put that forward as a positive suggestion in his statement to the House on June 12.
Unfortunately for the right hon. Member for South Down, his long-held aspirations towards integration suffered a cruel blow when the. Government whom he has long supported signed, without his advice or approbation, the Anglo-Irish agreement. No amount of invective which was hurled across the Floor of the House towards the Prime Minister has matched the depth of his disappointment on this subject.
I have outlined the dilemma which I see faces the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland as they face the dissolution of their Assembly and the continuance of direct rule. At the end of the day, we must say that they must resolve those dilemmas for themselves. The role which they believe they should take is a matter for them. It is a road which must be democratic and constitutional. If I may borrow a phrase from President Reagan, they can run from the Anglo-Irish agreement, but they cannot hide from its consequences, nor, may I add, from the opportunities which the Anglo-Irish agreement offers them. We must all hope that the time is not far off when Unionist Members will again grace the proceedings of the House, that the offer of discussions with the Prime Minister is taken up, and when the Unionists understand that if there is a place for a minority community in Northern Ireland, with its religion, its culture and its nationalist aspiration, there is equally a place for a majority community which has shared with us not only a common culture and heritage, but a common bond in adversity in decades gone by.
The Opposition have no more intention of turning their back on that majority than have the Government. In the circumstances, the Opposition see no alternative but to support the order tonight and the continuance of direct rule until such time as there can be devolution in the interests of the minority and majority communities in Northern Ireland, whatever their ultimate aspiration may be.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I commend to the House both the orders that we have debated this evening. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described what was happening today as a farewell party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) drew an analogy with certain people in California who put dead bodies on ice. I regard it rather as the sort of farewell that one gives to someone who may need to leave for a period of rest and recuperation before returning to full health.
I reiterate the belief, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), that it is devolved government, rather than the route which has come to be called integration, which provides the only solution and way forward for the government of Northern Ireland.
I echo the tribute that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West paid to the Speaker, the Clerk,


the staff and others who strove so mightily to make the Northern Ireland Assembly a success. Members of the Assembly are having their final debate now, and I echo the tribute paid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to those who played a constructive role throughout its life.
I shall return later to discuss in more detail some aspects of the Anglo-Irish agreement and especially its benefits. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was at pains to say that in presenting the Anglo-Irish agreement and in arguing for it we should make it clear that it is not just security and cross-border security co-operation that should matter. Of course, I agree with that. There are economic, political, and cultural matters that can also benefit from the discussion that takes place in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and in sub-groups which work between meetings of the conference.
The communiqué of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which was placed in the Library of the House following the meeting on 11 March listed well over 50 examples of cross-border co-operation in a variety of areas: education, tourism, fisheries, training, water resources and drainage. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West will be pleased to hear that horse breeding is another example of cross-border co-operation. The range is impressive. I commend to those who are interested those examples of cross-border co-operation. Most of them pre-dated the Anglo-Irish agreement, but they can benefit from the existence of the agreement.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) posed the wrong question to the Assembly when it was established. I shall paraphrase for the sake of brevity what the right hon. Member for South Down said. He said that the right hon. Member for Waveney had asked the Assembly to reconcile the irreconcilable in the work that it was undertaking. I believe that the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney in establishing the Assembly in 1982 was to determine whether sufficient common ground existed for the differences, which in constitutional matters are fundamental, to be put aside while elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland could co-operate to share discussion and ultimately decision-making on matters that affected the day-to-day lives of people living in Northern Ireland.
I am sad that an Assembly which I believe suffered from the outset from the understandable but, I still maintain, mistaken decision of the SDLP Members not to take their seats, and which has ended because of the refusal of the remaining Unionist Members to carry out the functions that Parliament has laid upon it should have come to an end. I regret it, but I believe that it will be but a temporary absence. I repeat my assertion that I believe that devolved government is the way forward for Northern Ireland.
I say to the right hon. Member for South Down—he took it from the physical reaction of my right hon. Friend but I repeat it now — that of course it is the Government's intention to ensure that courteous and proper treatment is accorded to those who have been Members of the Assembly and will cease to be so when the order which we are debating is finally signed. The Clerk is writing to Members of the Assembly to set out the

arrangements which will be in hand for them to remove their equipment and belongings from the precincts of the Assembly.
The Government and the House are entitled to reciprocity in this matter. The behaviour that led Members of the Assembly to invade a part of the building that did not belong to them, with the result that they had to be removed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, is not acceptable. I hope that we can look to those Members of the Assembly to behave with responsibility and courtesy. In return, we shall show it to them.
The right hon. Member for South Down made great play of the origins of the role of government in Northern Ireland. Historically, his analysis was totally correct. But he takes a huge leap forward when he says that, because the genesis of the concept of the role of government for Northern Ireland was based upon the aim of bringing about a united Ireland, that is why we now have devolved government in Northern Ireland, and that successive Governments have come to that idea simply to see the distinctive needs of Northern Ireland, and have established local arrangements so as to meet those needs. I shall return in more detail to the arguments about integration later in my speech.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends raised what they called the Irish dimension—in effect, the Anglo-Irish agreement. This is not the time or the place to go into detail about that agreement or why I maintain it is of immense importance to the future in Northern Ireland. I should like to make one thing clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). He said that it would be better if these discussions could take place within the context of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council rather than the conference. I want to make it clear that the conference operates within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Because it is charged with the work of dealing with north-south matters, it is obviously appropriate, as envisaged in the Anglo-Irish agreement, that it should be Northern Ireland Office Ministers who should be concerned with the work of the conference. But it is working within the framework of the Intergovernmental Council.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The difference is that the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference is the centre of an unequal treaty whereas the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council is an organisation where Ministers from two sovereign states can meet on completely equal, reciprocal terms.

Mr. Scott: I shall come to that point because it was suggested that in some way the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental agreement had caused some sort of inequality. The proposition that was put before the House was that the Irish Ministers were in a position to put forward views and proposals on behalf of the Nationalist community while my right hon. Friend would have to take account of the interests of all the citizens in both communities in Northern Ireland and somehow there was some inequality in this arrangement. There is, but only for so long as the representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland decline to come forward and use this House and the Assembly and all the other avenues that they have for contacting Northern Ireland Office Ministers in Northern Ireland. Ultimately all that the Irish Ministers can do within the context of the conference is to


put forward views and proposals. The decision-making process remains absolutely with my right hon. Friend. Nothing in the Anglo-Irish agreement affects that fundamental constitutional position.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West —and the point was also alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion —about the benefits of the agreement. I can assure the House that benefits are beginning to flow, not least in the area of cross-border security co-operation. Extra resources have been moved by the Garda Siochana to the border areas. But in a sense it is not just the numbers but the nature of cross-border security co-operation that will be important in the development of work in that area.
We have already had the first fruits of the work of cooperation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana and those will be the building blocks upon which, in time, we shall erect a strategy throughout the island of Ireland, agreed and operated by the two police forces, which will deny the terrorist the explosives, guns, money and free movement of men that he needs to carry out his work.
Already, important work at policy and practical levels on fugitive offenders is being carried forward. The switch in the January elections towards constitutional nationalism and away for support for Sinn Fein is another important benefit that has already flowed from the existence of the Anglo-Irish agreement. However, the fruits that we have seen are but a start in the work that will eventually flow from the agreement.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I simply want to ask my hon. Friend whether he had any news of the date of ratification by the Republic of Ireland of the convention on the suppression of terrorism.

Mr. Scott: No. As was made clear when the Justice Minister of the Republic signed the convention on the suppression of terrorism, it will need legislation. It is envisaged that that will be introduced in the autumn of this year. I think that that has been clearly understood. However, I am by no means an expert on the Irish legislative processes, so I cannot say how long it will take to go through the Oireachtas.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that it would be wrong— indeed, it would be impossible — for the House or the Government to impose some sort of solution for the political future of Northern Ireland. That must spring from the people of Northern Ireland. The Assembly was an attempt to provide the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland with a framework in which they could create that way forward. That must still be the principle on which we work. Only widespread agreement involving the elected representatives of both traditions can possibly provide the framework within which that progress can take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), with his customary, impressive forensic skills, presented a formidable but flawed case to the House this afternoon. The 1979 manifesto of the Conservative party said:
In the absence of devolved government,—
I emphasise those words—
we will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of power over local services.
I re-emphasise the words
In the absence of devolved government".

There is no room for devolved government and a regional council. Even Macrory said that there was room for only three tiers of government in Northern Ireland — district councils, Stormont and Parliament. If my hon. Friend is urging us to accept a regional council, he clearly envisages the end of the search for devolved government and the Government are not convinced of the validity of that argument. But he made it clear this afternoon that he did not envisage any such council being elected by proportional representation. Does he—he would have to address this — envisage such a council being run on majority rule lines? If that were his proposal, I can see not the slightest chance of the House passing legislation to that end, nor of the widespread acceptance in both communities in Northern Ireland which would be essential for any progress on that front.

Mr. Gow: The words which my hon. Friend and I quoted are, not surprisingly, identical:
In the absence of devolved government
we shall seek to set up one or more regional councils. emphasise the words
In the absence of devolved government".
Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 4 May 1979, when the Conservative Government took office, there has been both an absence of devolved government and an absence of a regional council or councils? Is that not in breach of the very promise that was made in the 1979 manifesto?

Mr. Scott: The whole thrust of what I have put before the House so far is that we should retain the search for that devolved government because that provides the only sound way forward for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that there will be consultations on these important matters without preconditions, he is in danger of creating those very preconditions?

Mr. Scott: With respect, I am going on to deal with some of the difficulties that those who advance some form of integration face in carrying their arguments through. But, no, the talks may be about amendments to the present arrangements for handling, for instance, legislative matters, but still against the context of the Government's commitment to a search for devolved government.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, in his opening speech, the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland which justify a distinctive approach to the political arrangements that are made for the Province. Ever since the creation of Northern Ireland some 65 years ago, it has had different arrangements from those which have obtained on this side of the water. Of course, that is not to say that no change should take place if arguments could be sufficiently right or convincing to carry the day. But the Government are not convinced by those arguments.
Today, three propositions have been put before us—that there should be changes in the legislative arrangements, aiming, where possible, to legislate for Northern Ireland by Bill rather than by Order in Council; that we should abandon the aim of devolved government for Northern Ireland; and that we should have an increase in the powers of local government.
I do not think that any hon. Member will need convincing of the extra strains that we would put upon the timetable of the House of Commons were we to say that


we should legislate only by Bill for Northern Ireland. A Grand Committee or a Select Committee, which have been referred to, would give rise to difficulties of membership and of balance within those Committees. I am aware, having served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office for nearly five years now, of the resentment —I do not think that is too strong a word —that exists about the present legislative arrangements in the House of Commons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has specifically offered to talk to representatives of the Unionist party and others about those arrangements. It is up to them to put forward specific proposals which could be discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about alternative arrangements which would better suit the needs of Northern Ireland legislation within the House.
I shall not make great play of the administrative upheaval which would be created by some of the arrangements suggested this afternoon. But if we were to abandon the search for devolved government and go down the integrationist route, the Ulster Unionist party would be far from unanimous in changing towards that course. The Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party would be completely hostile to any such change. Indeed, they have all made clear their hostility to it. Certainly there would he no chance of getting any widespread acceptance of the principles behind an integrationist approach.
Integration, in effect, would mean permanent direct rule for Northern Ireland — all the disadvantages of having a Secretary of State and other British Ministers ruling the Province, with no prospect of a body in Northern Ireland that could advise, disagree, argue, and persuade British Ministers on necessary changes in order to make that legislation reflect the needs of the local community in Northern Ireland.
Since 1982, I have seen clearly how effective the Assembly has been in monitoring the work of the Northern Ireland Departments, and how willing British Ministers in Northern Ireland have been to make changes in the legislation so as to make it more amenable to the needs of Northern Ireland.
We see an end to the Assembly today. We have to find a new way forward for Northern Ireland. That can happen only if the representatives of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland are prepared to talk to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about their genuine concerns. The Anglo-Irish agreement is an international treaty and it is not going to be put aside or suspended. But surely all elected representatives from Northern Ireland, Unionist and Nationalist, have a duty to engage in talks. The sooner they take place, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, 
That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Dissolution) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Extension)

Ordered,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

8 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved. 
I welcome this opportunity to restate the Government's policy on security in Northern Ireland and to explain why the Government feel it necessary to propose the continuation of the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
I shall begin with a brief review of security since the last renewal debate. So far this year, 13 members of the security forces and 14 civilians have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. I make no secret of the fact that the threat from Republican terrorism, mainly the Provisional IRA, remains high. It takes different forms, including shooting attacks on the security forces, the use of home-made explosives, and developments in mortar attacks against security force bases. To counter that threat the security forces are maintaining the most intensive rate of operations since 1981.
Against that background, the House will no doubt share my dismay and understand the frustration of the security forces when public disorder and intimidation, associated with so-called Loyalist protests against the Anglo-Irish agreement, divert vital police resources from the crucial task of dealing with terrorism. Disgraceful and cowardly attacks on off-duty policemen and women, and their homes and families, have made the job of the Royal Ulster Constabulary even more dangerous and difficult than usual.
Against that background, I know that the whole House will join me in praising the courage, impartiality and steadfastness of the RUC. The professional attitude that marks the RUC is a constant reassurance to all law-abiding people in the Province. I must also pay tribute, as I know the RUC would wish me to do, to the unstinting support provided to it by the Armed Forces. Significant extra military resources have been deployed recently in the Province to assist the RUC, to protect police stations and to mount additional patrols, while the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment continue to bear the brunt of front-line support for the RUC over much of the Province.

. Clive Soley: Is the right hon. Gentleman minded to act on the recommendation of Sir John Hermon, that the decision to allow a march or to reroute one and soon, should be taken out of the hands of the police and given to an independent body? If he made such a suggestion, it would make life easier for the police — and it is profoundly difficult at the moment — and would find support in various quarters of the House.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in that point. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I comment later on marches and so on.
I would not wish my tribute to the security forces and the brave and courageous task that they discharge in the Province to exclude my tribute to the dedication with which members of the prison service approach their duties. Those duties are, of course, made that much more difficult


by the nature of the prison population in Northern Ireland and, sadly, by the attacks that they too have suffered at the hands of so-called Loyalists.
The threat that terrorism presents to society in today's world demands an international response. Work on cross-border security, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred earlier, has certainly made an encouraging start following the Anglo-Irish agreement. There have also been developments since the last renewal debate. I refer, for example, to the important signature of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. We look forward to the presentation of legislation in the Dail, and hope that it will make good progress.
The House will also be aware of the substantial majority in the Senate Committee which examined the extradition treaty between the United States and this country. We obviously hope that there will now be speedy progress through the Senate. Constant vigilance, surveillance and intelligence are an essential part of the fight against terrorism, which often has an international dimension, if not being positively sponsored by other unfriendly nations. In that respect, the House will realise the commitment and dedication that is represented by the successful prosecution of the bombers involved in the outrage at the Grand hotel, Brighton. Hon. Members will also have read of those found guilty of the appalling outrage at the Droppin' Well Inn in Ballykelly.
Moreover, in recent months there have been substantial arms finds in Roscommon, just over the border in County Sligo. There have also been successes in Amsterdam, Boston, and most recently in Le Havre. Such successes are not accidental but the result of determined co-operation and of a growing sense of international commitment to working together to root out the evil of terrorism that threatens the democracies of the western world. We are committed to the fight against terrorism by apprehending supplies of arms and by ensuring that there are effective extradition arrangements, so that those who should stand charged of some of the most grievous crimes against their fellow citizens can be brought back to face trial. We must ensure that there is no safe haven to which terrorists can easily flee.

. Peter Bruinvels: No one could deny the courage and determination to fight terrorism that have been displayed so well by members of the RUC. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most unfriendly nations is that run by the madman Gaddafi? He has announced that he will send £1·3 million to support the IRA. Does that not mean that there will have to be even more control and observation along the borders so that we can fight terrorism that is sponsored by a country that has no respect for democracy?

Mr. King: I have already mentioned the threat posed by state-sponsored terrorism. If the latest intelligence is correct, the Libyan Government are determined to return again to the path that there is clear evidence to show they were on before. That is most unwelcome. The House will have noted and appreciated the extremely prompt response of Mr. Peter Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, who made it clear that that was totally unacceptable. He gave instructions that representations were to be made immediately to the Libyan Government, with whom the Irish Government still have, I believe,

diplomatic relations, in order to make it clear that such activity would be quite unacceptable whether north or south of the border. Everything that he said is entirely in line with our thinking on the subject.
That remark emphasised once again a point which must be increasingly understood, that one of the tragedies of the present position—the list of deaths that I have just read out —is that these murders are being committed with less and less point. I have heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) stress that these murders are pointless and that there is no longer any objective to be obtained through such terrorism. That is not the way that aspirations will be achieved.
The increasing political and human irrelevance of the IRA and other terrorist organisations proves that they no longer have a moral basis for their activities — not that they ever had one. That clearly emphasises that the terrorists recognise that they cannot persuade or command genuine support in a democratic society. Therefore, terrorism is their worst and last refuge.
It is significant, and many hon. Members will have noticed, that one of the features of recent murders is that three of the victims were Catholics, members of the minority community. Nothing can confirm more clearly that a permanent tyranny of terror is now all that the IRA can offer to people north or south of the border in Ireland.
Our commitment is to fight and to defeat the evil of terrorism. That must be done on a basis that our security policy is founded on the belief that the fight against terrorism is based on a strict observance of the law and on bringing terrorists to justice before the courts. In the face of the problems, difficulties and criticisms that they face about the system and the administration of justice that operates in a society where terrorism exists and where there is intimidation, whether that be of juries or witnesses, I would like to pay tribute to the great courage and commitment of the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland judiciary for the brave way in which they still discharge justice in the most difficult circumstances in the United Kingdom.
I would like to consider in that spirit the emergency legislation under which the judiciary operates in Northern Ireland. I recognise, as everyone recognises, that these are exceptional provisions to meet exceptional circumstances. We have sought to establish the minimum adjustments to ordinary law to enable the security forces and the judicial system to cope with the problems of terrorism.
When the Emergency Provisions Act as a whole is looked at in this light, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that Parliament's duty is to ensure that the derogations from the normal legal processes are as limited as possible and that any such derogation is fully justified. I and my predecessors and my ministerial colleagues have given very considerable and careful thought to the issues which arise. We have studied and discussed Sir George Baker's recommendations for amending the Act. We have also given careful consideration to the views of individuals and organisations — notably the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights — who have commented on Sir George Baker's recommendations. The Government have thus accepted that there is scope for amending the Act and we will be introducing legislation for this purpose as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, and certainly within the life of this Parliament.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I believe that the Secretary of State, in seeking our trust in this undertaking, is going a little far, for we may not be here in this Session next spring. Would he go further and say that he will introduce the legislation in the next parliamentary Session?

Mr. King: I am a stickler for parliamentary conventions and will not anticipate any Queen's Speech. I certainly will not anticipate the date of the next general election. We understand and believe in the importance of the legislation and I hope that it will be possible to reflect the spirit of what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has said, and the target time which he had in mind.
During the debate on a continuance order on 25 June 1985, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) set out in general terms the Government's main proposals for amending the Act, arising from Sir George Baker's recommendations. These proposals included an increase in the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial — which has now been achieved by an amendment order which came into effect in January this year; the repeal of the police power in section 11 of the Act, which duplicates the arrest power in section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act; recasting section 2(2) so that the onus in bail applications will be on the prosecution, and widening section 2(5) to include members of the RUC and RUC Reserve; and making the temporary provisions of the Act renewable annually by Parliament and subject to a maximum life of five years without re-enactment.
My right hon. Friend also said that he was considering Sir George's recommendation that magistrates should be able to remand persons accused of scheduled offences in custody for up to 28 days without consent so as to avoid wasteful and meaningless remand hearings. I can now say that I propose to implement this recommendation. I also propose that certain powers in the Act — the powers of entry and search in section 11(2), the power of arrest without warrant in sections 13 and 14, and the powers of entry and search in section 15(2) and (3)— should be exercised only on the basis of "reasonable suspicion". I should like to take this opportunity to describe in general terms some additional proposals which the Government intend to incorporate in that amending legislation.
We intend to propose provisions governing the rights while in custody of suspects arrested under the emergency legislation to have someone informed of their arrest and to have access to a solicitor. These provisions would effectively replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to persons arrested under the terrorism provisions.
We also intend to take the opportunity to introduce measures intended to inhibit the exploitation by paramilitary organisations of the private security industry in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of deep concern to me that members of paramilitary organisations should be able to masquerade as private security companies while engaging in what is little more than a glorified extortion racket. This concern has also been voiced by many public representatives in Northern Ireland and by the Northern Ireland Assembly. We propose a relatively simple scheme in which private security companies would be required to seek a certificate from the Secretary of State, and such a certificate could be denied if the Secretary of State were

satisfied that the granting of a certificate would further the aims of a paramilitary organisation. whether directly or indirectly.
It is obvious to all observers that the border with the Irish Republic plays a large part in the current phase of Republican terrorist activities. It is against that background that my earlier reference to the importance of the work of the Anglo-Irish agreement for improving cross-border security co-operation is so valuable. I know that some of my hon. Friends have expressed anxiety and impatience for early results. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who is so familiar with police matters, knows the time, preparation and depth of work involved in trying to achieve real improvements and the basis for effective cooperation that is necessary.
I can report to the House that the most encouraging item at the last Anglo-Irish conference held on Tuesday was the report received from the Chief Constable and the deputy commissioner of the Garda on the measures agreed to improve arrangements for the exchange of information and to develop liaison structures. A significant amount of work has been done and more will be carried out shortly. That offers the best prospect that there has ever been for close co-operation between the two police forces, faced as they are with the challenge and threat of terrorism.
Before I conclude my remarks on the order, I should like to add something, as I said I would, on the thorny issue of parades and marches in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a long tradition of marching to commemorate various historical events. Most of those processions are colourful and enjoyable occasions, but regrettably some have become strident and triumphalist in tone and purpose and a focus for sectarianism. The Public Order Bill currently before Parliament addresses the issue of how public processions should be controlled in England and Wales, and the House has shown during the debates on the Bill that it supports the right of any person or group of persons to hold a public procession so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the lives of people living and working in the area, or involve the prospect of serious public disorder.
My hope is that a similar attitude will prevail in Northern Ireland. How can it benefit anyone to march through an area where the inhabitants do not support the views being expressed by the marchers, and where the only result is to exacerbate tension in the area? This is a straightforward issue, and my views on the subject arise from my concern about the effect of such marches on inter-community relations within Northern Ireland. It is an issue on which the Chief Constable called for common sense and tolerance from both sides of the community in successive annual reports long before the Anglo-Irish agreement was signed.

. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State said that he hopes that the same attitude will prevail in Northern Ireland. Surely he should be telling us that he hopes that the same legislation will prevail in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is in the mind of the Government to ensure that legislation to deal with that matter is introduced, not just that he hopes that the attitude will prevail?

Mr. King: I have already told the House that we are waiting for the Public Order Bill to complete its passage


through the House before we consider its implications for Northern Ireland. In the light of the Bill and any amendments that are made in either House, we shall consider the ways in which we might apply such legislation in Northern Ireland.
Under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. the control of public processions is a matter for the police. I want to make that point absolutely clear. It is a police responsibility, and not mine, to decide whether to impose conditions on the organisers of a parade. It is true that I have a reserve power to prohibit processions and public meetings, but I want to make it absolutely clear that that power has invariably been exercised on the basis of police advice. Let me make it clear that that will continue to be my position. I would not intend to exercise that power save only on the advice of the police, on the proper law and order grounds.
The House will be aware that this year there have been hundreds of parades, and most have gone off entirely peacefully. Many hundreds more parades will take place in the next few months. I do not know how many — the House will realise that there are more than 2,000 marches and parades every year in Northern Ireland. That is a massive undertaking, with a massive responsibility and work commitment for the RUC. If the organisers, in discussion with the RUC, can act responsibly and choose routes that are not provocative, it will be possible for the marches to take place much more peacefully, and in a way that creates the maximum enjoyment for those involved, without interfering with the daily lives of those who might not share the marchers' views or beliefs.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sincerely encouraging people in Northern Ireland who are in any position of responsibility — parade organisers or members of the various orders — to consider carefully before finalising their proposals this summer, and to take account of the impact that their marches could have on inter-community relations.
I respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The Chief Constable himself has put forward proposals in his most recent annual report on the way in which those marches and the issues raised by them might be dealt with in the years ahead. That proposal can be considered and discussed. It is not relevant for this marching season. This season will take place under the rules that are already well established, whereby the Chief Constable has the responsibility.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: With regard to the proposal that has been attributed to the Chief Constable, will my right hon. Friend make sure before he carries it far that he discusses it with the other police staff associations, particularly the Association of Chief Police Officers on this side of the water, which he may well find takes a different view?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend said "attributed", but the proposal is in the Chief Constable's annual report. As far as I am aware, it has not been taken further at this stage. I am aware that there are some concerns about that, and that there are some who feel that it would be a bold gentleman who took on that responsibility. In Northern Ireland, one can see what a responsibility it might prove to be. I shall simply note what my hon. Friend says. As far as I am aware, the proposal has not been taken further, and it is unlikely that it will be until after the marching

season, when further lessons may be learned and further views formed as to whether it is worth pursuing. If it is, it should involve consultation with the various associations, as my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Soley: We recognise that the responsibility cannot be given to local authorities in Northern Ireland. No one is suggesting that. The principle is to take the police out of the problem of having to decide the route or conditions between competing political parties, which is often what it is about. If the police are taken out of that, and that responsibility is given to the independent bodies, as Sir John suggested, the duty of the police is more clearly to enforce the law. That is easier to do if they are not part of the discussion beforehand on whether the route is correct, and so on. I recognise that there are difficulties, but the police need to be taken out of the vice between competing groups.

Mr. King: The decisions on the suitability of routes are taken not on political grounds, but entirely on grounds of law and order, and the risk of disorder. I shall not go further because we see some real problems with the proposal, and this is not the moment to discuss it. After the marching season, and if it is wished to pursue the proposal further, there will be an opportunity for consideration to he given to it.
I hope that what I have said has demonstrated the concern that we have, while recognising the need to retain the emergency legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. to keep it under continual review. I certainly look to the opportunity to place the proposals that I will make before the House in legislative form. I should be interested in any thinking and views that right hon. and hon. Members and outside organisations may have on my comments. I include in that the political parties in Northern Ireland
I have therefore conceded that the Government believe that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 should be amended in a number of respects, but the question before us tonight is whether the temporary provisions of the Act should continue in force. For the reasons that I gave, regarding the security situation, the background against which the security forces and the Government have to operate. and the potential threat of terrorist violence that continues to hang over the people of Northern Ireland, I believe that it is essential that the order is renewed. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Secretary of State has one advantage over me today. According to my calculations, this is the sixth debate in which I have taken part devoted to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. In each one, I have said the same thing. I make no apologies for that. I imagine that I would be open to criticism if I had not. We have all on occasion recognised that we may have been mistaken, but normally consistency is considered to be a virtue, and on this subject our views have not changed. So I have said the same thing. There comes a time when one exhausts the various ways of saying the same thing. There are hon. Members on the Government Benches who have just as consistently disagreed with us, and that is their right. There are also those who have made no effort to understand what we on this side of the House have been saying. They have never directed their minds to the issues we have raised. They


have sought to refute us by reciting facts, obvious to everyone, as though we had overlooked them. They have invented opinions which we do not hold, and they have invented proposals which we have never made. As I cannot leave our arguments to be caricatured by those who do not understand them, if they were minded to do so, I fear that, at the risk of being tiresome, I will have to repeat what I have said so often. I will try to do so briefly as this is a short debate, and I will confine what I have to say to the specific issue which the House is deciding tonight.
This debate is not about who cares the most for law and order. We yield to no one in this House in our condemnation of lawlessness. Those who suffer most when the law ceases to be respected are those who are most vulnerable — the elderly, those on low incomes, those who are condemned to live in shadowed thresholds, dark with fears. We need no lessons on the evil which may be inflicted by human wickedness. We have no illusions about how innocent people can suffer from indiscriminate violence — in whatever cause — whether it is carried out on the instructions of a commandant, or a godfather, or the Libyan Government, or ordered by an American President. I hope we will he spared a lecture about the evils of terrorism, because anyone who pretends that that is what this debate is about is either incapable of understanding the issues or suffers from the oblivion of the wilfully deaf.
Nor are we oblivious of the difficult and dangerous tasks which we call upon the police and the law enforcement bodies to undertake. On other occasions we have paid tribute to them for the way in which they carry out their unenviable job. But they will tell us that their task does not become easier if we take away the normal guidelines within which they are expected to operate. We can judge lapses with some sympathy and understanding, but that is not the same as saying that anything goes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I was pleased to see the comments of Sir John Hermon. The police are protected if they are responsible to an authority which is fair and is manifestly seen to be fair—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That does not make sense.

Mr. Archer: Before we heard that explosion, I had intended to say that I recognise that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has a point. It does raise questions for debate, but this is not the occasion to debate them.
We on the Opposition Benches have two anxieties, and I am aware that they are shared by some hon. Members on the Government Benches whose minds are not completely closed.
First, we are aware of how provisions which were introduced in an emergency can become so entrenched in our habits of thinking that we come to regard them as normal. Not only do we cease to ask whether they can lead to unfairness, but we cease to ask ourselves whether they serve their original purpose, or whether they make any contribution to reducing crime. A conviction becomes a success, irrespective of whether we have convicted the right person.
In Northern Ireland a whole generation of lawyers, police and politicians have grown up with the 1973 Act and its successors. They have spent their professional lives

knowing nothing else. As one provision succeeds another and standards are gradually eroded, those who set out to destroy our way of life can take comfort because they will have succeeded. If we in this House cease to scrutinise each provision at least twice a year, we shall have fallen from the standards set by those who originally drafted the legislation. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having said that that is a function which the House must faithfully discharge.
I offer one example of how a power on the statute book encourages law enforcement authorities to act in ways which are both oppressive and pointless and which, on reflection, the authorities would not wish to do. On 22 October 1980 a young lady, Miss Ann Walsh, was arrested in her home by members of the armed forces. She was taken to the police station in a Saracen armoured car in full view of the neighbours. She was subjected to the humiliation of being searched and photographed. She was detained for about two hours and then released without any apology then or subsequently.
Ann Walsh was a school teacher and was described later by the Lord Chief Justice as
quiet, unassuming and of at least average sensibility.
Neither she nor any member of her family had ever been in trouble. It later transpired that someone had suggested that she had been associating with a member of an illegal organisation. That was untrue. It was a piece of gossip, and no one has ever discovered how it arose. But even if it had been true it would not have justified her arrest. Asked later in legal proceedings of what offence she was suspected, the person who arrested her replied
That's what we wanted to find out.
The military authorities apparently thought they were entitled to arrest Ann Walsh under the emergency provisions Act in the hope that they might find out some reason for their suspicions. They could only have thought that because section 11 of the Act has not been repealed. That section was clearly intended to be used only as a preliminary to detention under section 12. No one has been detained under section 12 for years. So far as I am aware, and certainly so far as I hope, there is no proposal to activate section 12 again. Yet sections 11 and 12 remain on the statute book.
There are other perfectly adequate powers of arrest, as Sir George Baker pointed out. The Lord Chief Justice had forthright criticisms to make of the authorities, and in the event he awarded Miss Walsh substantial damages. I do not suggest that the military authorities acted otherwise than in the interests of law and order. I think they got carried away, and I mention the case not by way of criticism of the military authorities, but because what happened was because of the existence of an unnecessary provision. If the authorities are invited to use unnecessary powers, there will be occasions when they exceed even the powers given to them.
There are provisions in this legislation which, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised fairly, are agreed to be no longer justified. Sir George Baker listed some of them. We are not persuaded that he went far enough, but that is an argument for another occasion. Sir George believed that some of the provisions and some of the powers were unnecessary and unfair, and even counter productive. He reported in March 1984 and, until now, his recommendations have been gathering dust on the shelves. We were pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said tonight — and I am grateful for his invitation for our comments.


He would not expect us to respond off the cuff — that would he silly. We will consider them. I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate them on another occasion. We do not believe, however, that this House would be doing its job if it simply rubber stamped the continuation of the present provisions.
Our second anxiety is that the strongest foundation for law and order, the strongest deterrent to lawlessness, is a conviction in the mind of the public that the law is manifestly fair and that those who enforce it go no further than is essential. The factor most likely to dissuade someone from lawlessness is the disapproval of his or her peer group — those among whom he moves and whose good opinion he values. If they can be persuaded that the law goes no further than is necessary, that it is fair between one group and another, that it protects those who are vulnerable, they will be more effective in dissuading potential law breakers than a whole army of policemen.
If the local communities in Northern Ireland can believe that the way to redress grievances is by constitutional politics and by the use of legal redress that freedom under the law is a reality, then the men of violence will be isolated and their recruiting ground will be denied them.
Nothing in Northern Ireland has given greater aid or comfort to the paramilitaries than the supergrass trials as they have come to be used. I shall not rehearse all the criticisms that we have made. It would afford us some comfort to learn that there will be no more supergrass trials, but I understand that that is not necessarily to be the case.
I know that accomplice evidence is admitted in other jurisdictions, including the courts of England and Wales, but its use in the Diplock context with a multiplicity of defendants, with long remands in custody before trial, and with inducements to lie, such as resettlement, immunity from prosecution and remission of sentence, is something different, and I believe that it would not have been tolerated by the authorities themselves a few years ago. They have become inured to falling standards.
I do not believe that this is something which can be left to the police, the prosecuting authorities or the courts. They can only administer the existing law. A legislative provision is needed to the effect that no one is to be convicted under the Diplock procedure on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. As I understand it, that is the intention of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He will no doubt seek to speak in the debate, but I hope he will forgive me if I pre-empt him by asking what the Government's intentions are in relation to that Bill. Will the House be given time to debate it?
It is essential that the law enforcement agencies are scrupulous to remain within the law and that they are manifestly seen to be scrupulous. If under the stress of the moment a policeman or soldier makes a mistake, I hope that we shall always make allowances for the pressures of the circumstance. That is not the same as condoning illegalities or sweeping inquiries under a carpet.
There is widespread anxiety about the Stalker inquiry. I know nothing of the matters under investigation in relation to Mr. Stalker, and I make no comment about them, but part of the anxiety arises because the public has been told nothing. It would not he surprising if people

asked why it was announced that Mr. Stalker was removed from the Northern Ireland inquiry before the allegations made against him appear to have been investigated.

.Mr. Mallon: It is crucial that we know whether Mr. Stalker had completed his report, and what Mr. Sampson has been charged to investigate.

.Mr. Archer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more about the matter than I do. I am only asking a neutral question would it not have been wiser to suspend the inquiry until the allegations had been investigated? And when the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell the House how much of the inquiry was completed under Mr. Stalker's direction, how much remained to be carried out, and when he will be in a position to make a further announcement.
This debate is brief and I promised that I would not repeat what I have already said in five previous debates. We of the Opposition believe that hysteria, resentment and grievances are the enemies of law enforcement. We believe that the most effective foundation of law enforcement is the confidence of the public, and that legislation should be designed to reinforce that confidence. That is why we shall divide the House tonight.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I appreciate the position of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but I have seldom heard a speech which less justified the decision announced at the end. He made a civilised, intelligent, sensitive speech, not agreeing wholly with but welcoming a good deal of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. It certainly lived up to the issues before us and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of them. But suddenly, at the end. as if he were chucking a stone into a pond, he said
That is why we shall divide the House.
There may be good reasons for that and we may hear them, but we certainly did not hear them from him. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will repair the omission.
On Monday the House debated a subject for which we have no direct responsibility and over which we have little power South Africa. The House was packed, the media were agog and the BBC recorded the proceedings live. Today we are debating an important part of the United Kingdom, for the citizens of which this House has absolute sovereign responsibility. It is an area where a large number of our fellow citizens have been killed and many live in peril. It is a province to which we provide more subsidy per head than any other part of Britain and where our investments dwarf those in South Africa. Yet today the House is virtually empty. I find that odd, but on reflection I suspect that the House, not for the first time, is mirroring a change of great importance in our country, namely, that the British people are beginning to disengage psychologically from Northern Ireland. They are switching off, turning their backs on the Province.
There are many reasons for that. Nobody enjoys the sight of killings and murders or the scenes of hopelessness and helplessness which often afflict us when we look at Northern Ireland. Above all, no one can countenance the failure of constitutional device after constitutional device, the last of which was dissolved today, or the sight of Northern Ireland politicians squabbling with each other whatever is proposed. To that extent, the House is


reflecting a profound public disillusionment which the politicians of Northern Ireland should take with the utmost seriousness.
I am a Unionist. I hope that the Union will prevail. But I perceive the main threat to the union today not as being the IRA or the Anglo-Irish agreement but the progressive disengagement of the British people on this side of the water from a quarrelsome Province. And my anxieties are reinforced — I hope I say this with complete fairness — by what I detect to be the evolving attitude of some Labour Members.
At the Labour conference some speakers wanted to turn their backs on Northern Ireland and walk away from it. Some Labour Members — I am not referring to any of those present — may say before the general election that the Labour manifesto should include some commitment to have one more go at a solution but if no agreement can be reached with the Republic over progress towards a united Ireland, then the Labour party should commit itself to getting out of Ulster completely. I do not know whether that will happen, but such voices can certainly be detected within the Labour movement.
The Labour party in government may also get into severe economic difficulties. I believe it will do. And I have been in the House long enough to know that drastic decisions are taken by Cabinets when they face economic crisis. Aden had to go because of prescription charges. It is possible that Labour may say, "We cannot afford to continue with Northern Ireland. We have other things to do with our money."
As a supporter of the Union, I am anxious about those matters. I raise them today because the message that needs to go out from the House to the politicians of Northern Ireland, especially those who are not present, is that their constant unwillingness to resolve differences, to find peace, to talk with British Ministers, to join in the political process — this abdication on the part of the representatives of Northern Ireland from the processes of our national life — is likely to accelerate the disengagement of the British people from Northern Ireland. We have a duty to give that warning to those in Northern Ireland whose friendship and loyalty I wish to preserve.
I turn to the subject of public order and terrorism, to which this order is specifically directed. I welcome the Secretary of State's decision that the order must be extended. I welcome it with regret because all of us regret the draconian powers of the emergency provisions. But in the present circumstances I do not think that the police and security services in Northern Ireland could possibly operate without them. They could not otherwise provide the protection for persons and property that our citizens are entitled to expect. So if this House were to remove the powers which provide that protection, we should be in dereliction of our duty. That is why I shall find it strange if the Opposition vote against the order.
Broadly speaking, my right hon. Friend is right to say that there has been some improvement in the terrorist situation. Four strong blows have been struck at international terrorists over recent weeks. First, the conviction of the Brighton bomber and his accomplices was a remarkable police achievement. The House ought to pay tribute to the forensic experts of the Metropolitan police and to many forces up and down the country who pursued patiently and diligently a very difficult quarry. We

should also pay tribute to the co-operation between the police on this side of the water and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Brighton was a severe blow to terrorism.
So, too, was the successful conviction — indeed, there was confession — of the murderers of 17 young people at the Droppin' Well pub in Ballykelly. The morning after that massacre 1 went to the ruins. Some of the bodies were still stacked up like dominoes. I saw a satin dance shoe belonging to one of the young girls. That brought it home to me. And as it happens, I heard over a radio that was switched into the BBC's "News at One" programme that back here in Westminster Mr. Kenneth Livingstone was entertaining that very day the representatives of Sinn Fein at County Hall. I must confess that I reacted strongly to that news in the ruins of the Droppin' Well pub. When 1 returned to London I took that slipper across the river, went into Mr. Liverstone's office, banged it on the desk and invited his people to hand the slipper to the Sinn Fein representatives.
I am proud of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and I am glad that they should have achieved the conviction of that group, including females as well as males, who blew up those young people at the Droppin' Well pub.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the successes of the police and the security services in France, Holland and elsewhere in making a series of arrests — charges no doubt will follow — of gunrunners in Le Havre and elsewhere who have been involved in getting weapons — some of them sophisticated — to the IRA. That is a further great success. I believe that it reflects, more than anything else, the new collaboration that is emerging between the police and the security services of western Europe and North America.
For that—I hope that I put this objectively — the Libya raid must be thanked. Before the Libyan air strike, summit conferences had said many fine things about increasing collaboration on measures to counter terrorism. The foreign Ministers had met and the home Ministers had met and they had said the same. But my experience is that before Libya the words were strong but that the action was weak; since Libya, however, there has been far closer collaboration in the sharing of intelligence and in the working together of the police services and this has helped to bring about the convictions and arrests that we must now greet with satisfaction.
It is to also be welcomed that this increasing international co-operation is buttressed by the efforts of the Reagan Administration to ensure that the CIA and the FBI give us better support than we have ever had before. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that. The United States has helped enormously.
Then, too, there is the Anglo-Irish agreement. This causes serious problems of conscience for many members of the RUC, to which I shall turn in a moment, but it must also be recognised that the agreement has put the stamp of political approval on the cross-border co-operation that for years had been developing between the two police forces. This has now been given a political momentum that is greatly welcomed by those who are the practitioners of security on both sides of the border.
I must mention another matter. It is a useful step forward that the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate has agreed, by a larger majority than


some of us might have expected, to report out the extradition treaty. This does not go all the way. But it goes a large part of the way. It will, I believe, be helpful.
It is perfectly understandable, when one considers the traditions of the United States, that some Senators were reluctant to allow extradition without a court process. I recognise that Senator Eagleton and his colleagues need the consent of their courts to be incorporated in the arrangements before they would report out the Bill. But I have one question about this to ask my hon. Friend. Accepting, as I do, that the Senate's version is likely to be agreed to by the United States Congress as a whole, is he able to say whether he perceives that there could be difficulties with some of the United States jurisdictions when they look at the Diplock courts and consider whether a fair trial is available? The Americans are used to the jury system. It could be that in some federal appeal court jurisdictions the absence of a jury, because of Diplock, might be used as a reason for refusing extradition. This is an important matter. I do not ask my hon. Friend to give assurances that are beyond his ability. I just want to be certain that the matter has been looked at and discussed with the Federal authorities.
I make this further suggestion. It is not within the ability of any American court actually to determine on the ground whether the processes in Northern Ireland provide a fair trial. A court does not have a researcher who can be sent over here to check up, and we should resent it deeply if it did. I also suppose that the practice in this country, if there were any question as to whether or not a jurisdiction abroad were fair, would be that it would be up to our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to provide a certificate to the court, saying that he was satisfied that there could be a fair trial in a particular country.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider making representations to the United States that, in the event of a United States court resisting extradition on the ground that the Diplock procedures did not provide for a jury, it should be sufficient for the United States Secretary of State to provide a certificate giving his assurance that he was satisfied beyond any question that the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland are fair. I put that proposal to my hon. Friend, because it needs to be considered.
I move from the general proposition that there is a measurable improvement on the security front to a warning that it would be madness to become complacent. As my right hon. Friend has very fairly said, murder, bombing, kidnapping and assassination are still parts of the arsenal of the IRA.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has declared himself to be a Unionist. Does he maintain that these are the tools only of the IRA? Are they not the tools that are also used by paramilitaries on the Unionist side that he espouses?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It makes no difference from which side murder, assassination or kidnapping comes. I attributed those things to the IRA, but I condemn all those who do such things.
I should like to speak for one moment about the pressures and strains on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I make no bones about it: for a force that has expanded rapidly from about 3,000 to 8,000 regulars, or to 10,000 if we include the immediate reserves, over some seven or eight years, the RUC has made remarkable progress. It is

probably the most proficient counter-insurgency civil police force in the western world, and it deserves congratulations on its professional efficiency and on the dedication and courage of its members.
On Monday night the Secretary of State and I attended the annual conference of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. It was most agreeable to hear the tribute that the Secretary of State paid to the force. His words were sincere and greatly appreciated. Large numbers of RUC men are nevertheless going through a crisis of conscience. Some of them are bewildered; they do not quite know where they stand. One reason for this is that the RUC is overstretched. The force is being expected to do too much. The RUC in fact is a police force with four separate roles.
Its first role is to carry out all the ordinary police tasks. Crimes of disorder, traffic offences, drugs and corruption are growing all over the world; and coping with those things alone would be enough for the RUC. But, on top of that, it has other roles that are not carried out by our other police services. Thus its second role is to tight a terrorist offensive. The RUC is a counter-insurgency force and a large part of its time, probably 40 per cent. of its time in one way or another, is expended not on fighting conventional crime, but on counter-insurgency.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary's third role is as the guardian of an international frontier. That, too, is an armed role and a special one that the RUC and its predecessors have had since the setting up of the border. This task demands a great deal of a civilian police force; indeed, when one visits some of the border posts, one sees that the RUC is not really policing at all. In many cases its members are besieged in semi-fortresses, festooned with barbed wire. Its officers are often unable to go out to carry out the conventional tasks of serving warrants and apprehending criminals without the armed protection of the Army.
It is the RUC's fourth role that is the most difficult of all. Since the Anglo-Irish agreement, the RUC has been confronted by a major public order problem arising from the hostility of a very large number, probably a majority, of the people of Northern Ireland who are against that agreement. As a result of that perceived hostility, many members of the RUC have been faced with some impossible dilemmas.
There are professional dilemmas. How does one police against the wishes of the majority? How does one police without what we like to describe as consent? What is the position of a police officer when, as one of them put it to me, he is expected to "give them a tanning in the streets and drink with them in the evening?"
There are personal dilemmas too when police officers are expected to ban or stop marches and then go back and live within the community from which those marches traditionally have originated. Police officers who have grown up in one culture, lived among one group of people now find themselves spurned, despised and cold shouldered by their neighbours and friends. Inevitably, that has an impact on their working lives.
I have seen nothing worse nor more unforgivable in Northern Ireland than the attacks by so-called Loyalists on members of the police force. We have all seen and condemned them, but I shall give just two examples. I went to talk to a young constable who had proudly bought his own home. He and his family had been burnt out of it by


a petrol bomb. They had taken refuge in one of the houses that had been provided expeditiously by the emergency housing authority.
I talked to the young man about the practical questions — what compensation would he get, would he be able to buy another house, would his mortgage be extended, would his bank lend him money when it knew he was a target? But what will remain with me was not our discussion of the practicalities but the look of sheer hurt and bewilderment that he, as a police officer, who had come into the service to do his utmost for the community, should now suddenly be petrol-bombed and burnt out of his home by people who called themselves Loyalists.
The second example was in Dungannon. In the basement of the police station, I was shown six plastic bags. Those contained all that remained of the belongings of three young policewomen. These three girls, all of them of the age to be the daughters, if not the granddaughters, of every hon. Member present, had joined the RUC and were living in flats provided by the police in Dungannon. One night, all three were bombed and everything that they had was smashed or destroyed. All that was left of their possessions was put into the plastic bags. I looked inside and saw a charred squash racket, a few pairs of shoes and some underwear. That was all that was left. And these girls too put it simply: "How can those who call themselves Loyalists do that to us, the police?"
That is the working reality for many Northern Ireland policemen. They are faced with terrible dilemmas a result of the agreement. It is essential that the RUC should not be depicted in Northern Ireland either as the guardians of the agreement, for they are not, or, as some would suggest, as being duty-bound to their communities to oppose the agreement, which they must not do either. The police are politically neutral. They must be impartial. They are not the servants of any Government. They serve the Queen as the limbs of the law. Just as the police during the miners' strike here were not enforcing the wishes of the Government, so the police in Northern Ireland must not be seen to be the enforcers of Government policy either. They must be seen to he the impartial guardians of the law, and they come into the Anglo-Irish agreement only when persons use violence or illegality against it. If the police will keep that clear line in their minds — that they guard the law, not the agreement — many of their dilemmas, I believe, can be resolved.
I turn to some of practical questions that I hope that my hon. Friend will mention in his reply; if he cannot deal with them fully, perhaps we may discuss them in other ways. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was right to mention Mr. Stalker. I have known a deal about the Stalker investigation for a long time. I confess that I have always visualised a disturbing denouement when all the facts became known.
It is unfortunate that the same chief constable who has been asked to take over Mr. Stalker's investigation—and I wish him good luck in it and hope that he will be speedy in his conclusion—has also been asked to examine the personal allegations against Mr. Stalker. It would have been better if a different chief officer had been asked to deal with the Greater Manchester force problems than the chief officer who has been asked to go to Northern Ireland to carry through the Stalker report. Having the same chief officer doing both is bound to lead

mischievous people to conclude that there is a connection between the charges that may be brought against Mr. Stalker and the reason why he has been removed from the Northern Ireland investigation. It would be unfortunate for anything to be done in an official capacity that suggested that Mr. Stalker was removed from the investigation because of what was happening in Northern Ireland.
Some hon. Members may have seen the "Panorama" programme the other night when it was suggested that there was a conspiracy and that Mr. Stalker had been removed from the investigation because he was likely to spill the beans. It was suggested that the RUC, in a subversive manner, had decided to rubbish, devalue and besmirch him and to get him removed from the investigation lest he produced embarrassing matters against them. I have no intimate knowledge of the details. But I suggest that the House would be unwise to adopt the foolish conclusions of the "Panorama" programme.
The inference that the RUC has engaged in a deliberate character assassination of Mr. Stalker to prevent his investigation exposing improprieties in that force is a serious allegation against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Of course, it must be, and I am sure will be, fully investigated, but I hope that the House will not simply adopt such a smear before the evidence is out. Both in the case of Mr. Stalker personally and in the investigation of the incidents that he was dealing with, it is crucial that the job be now done quickly, that there is full disclosure and that this brave force is able to get back to the real business in hand.
Now to my practical points which are rather like a laundry list, for which I apologise. First, the gag. I hope that my hon. Friend will find — with me if I can help — ways and means of solving the problem of the muzzle that has been placed by the Chief Constable of the RUC on the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. This has gone on for far too long. There is right on both sides — I mean no pun in saying that — but it is urgent that the matter be resolved. There will not be a proper relationship between the Chief Constable and the representative body set up by Parliament until the gag is removed.
It is no less important to make speedy progress with the review of the constitution of the police staff association in Northern Ireland. The time has come to take the federation, which represents 99 per cent. of the men and women of the force, out of the staff association corset, which is cumbersome and unwieldy, and allow it to be treated in the same way as police federations are treated in England and Wales. The more closely we assimilate the staff arrangements of the RUC to those which obtain over here, the better for all concerned.
It is important that the question of federation attendance at the police authority is resolved. I had the opportunity to speak with Sir Myles Humphreys about that the other night. The reasons the police in Northern Ireland are excluded from the police authority — they are admitted in every other force in the United Kingdom — are an insult to them. First, they are not admitted because it is alleged that their presence would impair the confidentiality of the police authority's proceedings. That is absurd. Every police officer in Northern Ireland must sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act. He is used to keeping confidentiality at all times.
Secondly, the police are kept out of the authority because of impartiality. It is alleged that the impartiality


of the police authority would be compromised if the RUC were to be admitted, implying somehow that the federation is a sectarian Protestant body that would upset the balance between the Protestant and Catholic religions. That reason is equally insulting to the federation. I hope that my hon. Friend will try to deal with those petty problems that are impairing morale at a time when it needs to be high.
To conclude, there is progress against terrorism. But difficulties have arisen as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I suspect — I hate to say it — that the Anglo-Irish agreement may, before long, go the way that the Assembly and many of the other constitutional devices that we have attempted to bring in to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland have gone. But whether the agreement stays or goes, I am quite certain of one thing. The future maintenance of public order, the rule of law, the administration of justice, and freedom and security for the people of Northern Ireland must involve cross-border cooperation and a southern Irish dimension. One way or another, that must be brought in to any arrangements for the security and politics of the Province.
To sum it up, many police officers are worried about the Anglo-Irish agreement. Some are bewildered by it. But all of them, operationally, understand the need to work with the Garda.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I understand that it is desired that the debate should conclude as quickly as possible. There are indications from certain quarters that it should conclude at around 10 o'clock. Therefore, I shall not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke. This is my first contribution to the debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that it was his sixth contribution. I was not looking forward to the debate.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made the most bizarre speech on law and order that I have heard for some time. He reminded me — it is the last time I shall use the expression tonight — of a well-rehearsed supergrass. The hon. Gentleman bore all the traits of those I have seen in witness boxes. who were put through their paces by Government or whatever section of the police service they worked for, and came up with a well-rehearsed piece of evidence. The hon. Gentleman came up with a well-rehearsed piece of evidence rather than a contribution to the debate.
I have seen terrorism and violence. I know what they are. I shall not fall into the hon. Gentleman's trap of recounting all those instances. They are more gory and greater in number than the hon. Gentleman recounted. Everything I shall say in the debate will be said against the background of my abhorrence of all types of violence, from whatever source. Violence was demonstrated in my constituency on Tuesday. A young man whom I knew well — I know his family well — was found lying dead on the side of a road. He had been shot. That night, when I attempted to get to sleep, 150 people with masks on their faces took over my village. They did so in the name of Unionism, which the hon. Gentleman espouses.
That is the type of situation in which we live, so let us please have no condescension and patronising attitudes.

Those who live amongst all that is happening know exactly what it is like. We do not need that sort of patronising attitude shown by anyone.
My first crucial point was touched on in the previous debate on other issues. Can there be natural, normal law in an unnatural, abnormal situation created unnaturally and abnormally to sustain an unnatural and abnormal majority within an abnormally divided country?
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West pointed out that there is a generation of policemen, lawyers and young people who have never known anything but the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. I did not know anything other than the emergency provisions legislation that went before it, nor did anyone who lived in the north of Ireland. It was much worse than this Act. On one famous occasion, a member of the South African Government claimed to want the provisions of the special powers legislation for his own country. We have had emergency provisions since the day the north of Ireland was founded.
The key question is: can there ever be a normal society, a normal legal process and a normal system of justice in an abnormal society? The answer is no. Unfortunately, as long as Northern Ireland exists and the constitutional position remains unchanged, there will be this type of legislation.
I have always referred to the rake's progress in relation to Northern Ireland because every time one bends the law one makes more paramilitaries. Since 1969, it has been proven conclusively in the north of Ireland that, each time the law is bent, more people join the UDA, UVF, IRA, or INLA. They have been given a reason to become paramilitaries. That rake's progress is there for everyone to see. That is why this legislation is objectionable.
If the legislation were capable of working, it would have worked during the past 64 years, but it has failed. We are faced with the prospect of similar failure during the next 64 years, if this legislation lasts that long. No amount of scare tactics or gory detail will change that reality. To get to grips with the process of justice and law in the north of Ireland, we must realise that reality.
One aspect that is absolutely objectionable in relation to this legislation is the Diplock system in the courts. The House took away the protection that the individual had within the court system — the protection of the jury. While this type of legislation lasts, the House has a duty to replace that protection, at least partially. That will riot be the real answer, which is a return to the jury system. Until that system returns, the House must replace it with a system of three judges who hear all cases concerning scheduled offences. Unless that is done, the individual will not have the protection which is normally available under the law and to which he is entitled.
The relationship between policing in Northern Ireland and the position of Mr. Stalker is a controversial point. found it difficult to restrain myself when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was making his references to Mr. Stalker. I met that man and I gave evidence to him. I regard him as a man of immense integrity and professionalism and all the innuendos about him are grossly unfair and not worthy of the type of consideration given to them by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard. I did not asperse Mr. Stalker. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about Mr. Stalker's professional


competence. However, I believe that the matter of the investigation into this action, which is sub judice, should be completed quickly.

Mr. Mallon: I was saying that it is evident that it is now coming to the point where a man has been removed from his position without knowing why. He has been investigated by the man who has taken over the leadership of his inquiry in the north of Ireland. That is happening within a British society which claims to have total respect for that which is just and right.
There is a grave suspicion in Northern Ireland that Mr. Stalker has opened a can of worms, that that can has spilt out in more places in Northern Ireland, and that that is part of the reason why a good, honest and just policeman has been made a sacrificial lamb in stakes which are much higher than his own position within the Greater Manchester police service.
I have one simple question to ask which is the key to the issue. There are two elements to the report. The first is the substantive element which Mr. Stalker inquired into in relation to the whole ethic of policing, attitudes towards policing and the type of attitude we have seen within a special branch which was a force within a force. Does that report remain with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Constable and eventually with the Government, or does it die with Mr. Stalker? That investigation and report cannot be repeated by Mr. Sampson unless he is given at least two years.
The other element of the report is that which deals with the incidents themselves. That can, and I hope will, be speedily investigated and concluded by Mr. Sampson. What about the substantive element of the report? Is that the kernel of the problem or will we see that report coming to the Government and to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable of the north of Ireland for action? When we know the answer to that, we will know what is behind this problem.
I shall finish on one point, which I raise only because' it was raised by the Secretary of State. We are entering into the marching season in Northern Ireland. It is causing and will cause enormous problems for all of us. It is incredible to realise that in 1986 we have over 2,000 such marches in a very small area of land with a very small population. The cost of the marches is incredible, not just financially but in time, inconvenience and loss of businesses. I know, because I live in a village which has a parade of some kind or another every Friday night, apart from those on Sunday. That lasts for seven months of the year.
I listened with interest to the points made and put to the Secretary of State in relation to some other body making the decisions rather than the police. I suggest that it is crucial that the decision must rest with those who take the political decisions because it is only they who can decide whether millions of pounds of our money is spent on making that type of provision. It is only they who eventually will be able, if they have the courage, to say that this cannot continue, year in and year out, to the detriment of the police, business people and everyone trying to live a normal life, and, above all, to the detriment of the public purse. That is where the matter rests.
One of the real challenges of administrative politics is having the courage to go in and make such a decision. No

attempt should be made to shove that responsibility on to somebody else. It lies fairly and squarely on the Government Benches.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Every three weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to the House and answers questions on Northern Ireland and refers to the current security situation. He gives the good and the bad news. He reports on the number of people who, sadly, have been killed in incidents as a result of the security position in the Province. On 5 June 1986 he gave the good news that so far this year 264 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder, and 17 with attempted murder. In the same period, 96 weapons, 10,600 rounds of ammunition and 1,200 lb of explosives have been recovered.
The reason why there is a success story comes straight out of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Northern Ireland has been a country of conflict. There is no doubt that the RUC has a difficult task. Wherever its men go they are under constant threat. They are courageous. They have to adopt an impartial attitude to the way in which they are able to enforce the rule of law. Two per cent. of the RUC are members of the Roman Catholic faith. They have to deal with many difficulties. The attitudes which they have to take in fighting terrorism in every way possible should be supported in the House. It does not matter to me how a terrorist is caught as long as he is caught. I want the RUC to be given the best possible powers so that they can maintain a free society in Northern Ireland.
Too many lives have been wasted already and too many lives have been lost. If section 11 gives the power of arrest without warrant of any person suspected of being a terrorist, so be it. That is taking the terrorist off the street. [Interruption.] Labour Members may object to the plain truth, but too many people are suffering in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and we should give it proper protection.
There are 11,000 members of the RUC and 10,000 members of the Army in Northern Ireland and if we are to catch terrorists they must have every possible resource before them. This order is just one of the useful ways of fighting terrorism. It will not get just the members of the IRA. Indeed, it does not. It will get the paramilitary organisations and the other people who are undermining society over there.
However, we must face the fact that the security forces in Northern Ireland are living dangerously. Fifty-four members of the security forces died in 1985 and 27 have died this year to date. The Democratic Unionist party has said that when the Northern Ireland Assembly goes it will bring politics on to the streets. It is distracting the RUC from trying to catch the terrorist.
The prison officers bravely maintain law and order in the prisons in difficult circumstances, when members of the IRA are deliberately anti-establishment in the prisons. Twenty-four officers have lost their lives in the past 10 years. They need protection on their way home. I want to see more protection for our prison officers. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies he will confirm that everything possible is being done to protect the prison officers, not just in the prisons but in their "safe" homes.
The same must be said for all members of the RUC. It is a shocking indictment that a prison officer and a police officer can never be off duty; can never be completely safe. Their names and addresses are openly circulated and if the IRA has an opportunity to get them it will do so because they are seen as the establishment and the IRA will not stomach them.
Therefore, the emergency provisions will help security, just as much as America, which is now responding on the extradition treaty and, indeed, seems to be calming down on the amount of money being sent through Noraid. I believe that our forces are still acting within the law. That is not a hope but a genuine belief. The courts have been very responsible. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, they have difficult duties and responsibilities to bear. When they sentence people — all right, they may have been charged following a supergrass trial—they are guilty. The more guilty people who are convicted and put into prison, the better. If it means that there is no time for jury trials, so be it. I have faith in the judicial system in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already admitted that he will improve safeguards for suspects.
Much has been said about the Anglo-Irish agreement. It is common knowledge that I am not its greatest fan. But it is early days and we cannot yet tell how much improvement there has been in cross-border co-operation. However, it certainly seems better than before. The two police chiefs are now talking to each other, and security on the border is being regularly maintained. The House must always hack the security forces in fighting violence.
The agreement has certainly meant close border cooperation. Much more must be done. We are lucky if an IRA attack is shown on national television. We have become rather complacent about the number of attacks and incidents in Northern Ireland. It is no longer news to see someone being bombed. That is no good. We as a people must fight the terrorists. with force if necessary. The Americans, who are still giving to Noraid, would be shocked if they knew how so many brave security officers had been murdered and attacked. If we could give full reports of those incidents and could describe exactly how someone had been murdered, the Americans would no longer believe that they were funding political folk heroes, and would realise that they were funding political cowards who do not believe in the democracy of Northern Ireland.
This order is essential for the continued future and safety of the people of Northern Ireland. They want the order. It has been in existence for a long time. While waiting to be called, I have read the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 in its entirety. Many of its provisions, introduced, incidentally, under a Labour Government, have assured better security for the people of Northern Ireland.
There is always controversy over religion, but talk of the heroes of the south of Ireland is not acceptable to the people of the north. The border must be maintained even more carefully. There must be regular patrols. We must publicise the outrageous acts of the IRA, and be even more prepared, now that Colonel Gaddafi, that madman and warmonger, has announced that he is to recommence donating substantial sums to the IRA, to put all members of the RUC on red alert. Colonel Gaddafi is talking about giving. £1·3 million to kill innocent people. That is state terrorism.

.Mr. Bob Clay: What about the people killed in Libya by aeroplanes from British bases?

Mr. Bruinvels: In the other place the Lord Chancellor said that state terrorism was a treasonable offence and that the death penalty was already available for it. If we had the death penalty for terrorism, the IRA would think again. If three or four terrorists lost their lives, they would not become the martyrs that they imagine. We must be tougher about protecting a very important part of our country. The order will ensure regular safety and protection under the law for the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. We owe that to them. Peace must be maintained. I am surprised that Opposition Members cannot support an order that will ensure peace and that will protect those who need our protection now.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Mr. Speaker, can you tell me when the winding-up speeches are supposed to begin? I do not want to intrude on anyone's time. I have had to sit and listen to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) speaking for longer than either of the Front Bench spokesmen and the rest of us could not get in to speak. I will be as quick as I can and make a few points.
We have heard miserable nonsense from Conservative speakers and nothing political emerged from the speeches. The Northern Ireland problem is political and it needs political answers. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke at massive length but did not speak a single word of politics. I do not need to say anything about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
The debate is about the emergency provisions and the account by Sir George Baker. The National Council for Civil Liberties set out in its evidence to Sir George Baker — and this bears out the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the reasons why the council came into being. Having been given so little time to speak, this will be my major point. The NCCL stated that it was Northern Ireland which brought it into being. The NCCL stated in its evidence to Sir George Baker:
In 1936, the NCCL established an independent Commission of Inquiry to take evidence in Northern Ireland and to examine the administration and constitutional validity of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts, the precursor of today's Emergency Provisions Act. 
It reported in 1936 and concluded that through the operation of the Special Powers Acts, 'contempt has been begotten for the representative institutions of government'; that 'abrogation of the rule of law has been so practised as to bring the freedom of the subject into contempt'; that the Acts had secured the domination of one political faction which by its actions had driven legitimate movements underground into illegality—thus driving its opponents into the ways of extremists; and lastly that the Acts had been used against innocent people whose injuries had gone unrecompensed and disregarded.
That is the position with the Emergency Provisions Act. It is present because one faction, aided by the Labour party and the Tories, was allowed to develop until it festered and blew up in our faces. In the face of that, all we hear from the Conservatives is a miserable account of what is happening about security. We have not heard a single sentence about how to solve the problem. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench—and I am cutting my speech short to hear what he says—


will, in all conscience, say something political. The people in Northern Ireland will continue to be slaughtered as long as the border exists, and as long as nothing is done to remove the border which is wrong and abnormal, and which is stealing territory from a sovereign nation which once again wants to be sovereign.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He is absolutely right to say that, in the context in which he made his short intervention, we are dealing with a curious situation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a democracy and we are part of a democracy. Northern Ireland has an international border and that border causes total instability and destabilises democracy in Northern Ireland and the democracy of these islands.
I recently had the opportunity to write an article in which I stated that the difficulties and problems of Northern Ireland spoil the harmony of our own country. The problem that we have discussed at length earlier will continue to fester and cause us heartache. However, more than that, it will cause heartache and distress to those who live in Northern Ireland. The consequences of the instability can be seen every day of the week. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) made a long contribution — as he sat through the previous debate for most of the evening—and he referred to the difficulties faced by the police and the attacks made on members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I have before me a magazine called Focus, the magazine of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. It states:
In March, 43 police officers had their homes attacked and 11 families have had to flee from certain areas. The attacks … have … been particularly brutal.
I could go on at greater length, because there are quite a few of those attacks on members of the RUC in Northern Ireland. They have shocked the conscience of the British people as much as the IRA. I have always taken the view that the IRA cannot and will not bomb or terrorise the people of these islands into any sort of submission along the lines of IRA policy. That is inconceivable in the long run. It is similar to the remark that I believe Winston Churchill made in 1943 about Germany and Hitler:
What kind of people do they think we are?
What sort of people does the IRA think we are? The paramilitary — those who have perpetrated such violence on members of the Protestant community — equally reveal the deep wells of hatred and cynicism on both sides of the sectarian divide, adding to the destablising situation.
We in the Labour party make no bones about our position. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke in fear of our next election manifesto, and thought that we might have a policy that gave dates for withdrawal from Northern Ireland or some such aspect. I only repeat the remarks made by the Secretary of State earlier. He said that he could not anticipate the legislation to be announced in the Queen's Speech. I cannot anticipate our legislation, and what will be in our manifesto. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our policy is that we believe in a united Ireland. We believe that we should work for that united Ireland. We believe that, in the long run,

Ireland will be united in peace and through the consent of the people of the north. That is our objective, and that is our policy.
With regard to the renewal of the emergency provisions, it is a matter of deep regret that they are before us at all. One has to understand the deep anxiety that we feel on issues such as the Diplock courts. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made an interesting and intriguing point. Will extradition take place from the United States to a country where a judge takes the role of 13 people? He takes the role of the 12 members of the jury and that of the judge. He is not only the arbiter of the law but the arbiter of the facts. In all the cases that I have taken before our criminal courts, the judge always addresses the jury and tells them that the question of fact is a matter for the jury. I respect the judiciary, and I associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the judiciary in Northern Ireland and the Lord Chief Justice, but it is too great a burden on a single individual for him to have to disseminate the facts as well as the law.
We are most concerned, and have been for many years, about the supergrasses. There was an interesting review of the entire supergrass system in the Law Quarterly Review, in an article by Steve Greer, a lecturer in law at the university of Sussex. He makes several cogent and important points about supergrasses, and about how we in England and Wales have handled the trials of those who have given evidence against their former accomplices. He shows the great discrepancy that is developing between the law of our own country and the law in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it makes us all extremely nervous to be confronted with section 7 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and to have to vote for it.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, we repeat our support for the security forces, and for all those who fight terrorism. We are as happy as anyone in this country at the finding of guilty in the Old Bailey trial of the Brighton bomber and his cohorts, and the case of the Droppin' Well incident, when there were pleas of guilty. We support all those actions of the security forces.
We are nervous, and we have consistently pressed the Government to implement the recommendations of the Baker report. I note that the Secretary of State is present for the reply to this debate and we congratulate him on the positive approach he has taken with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Baker report. Former Secretaries of State have told us that they proposed to carry forward these recommendations, but tonight we have had an assurance that these recommendations will be brought in within the lifetime of the present Parliament. I do not know whether that gives us a hint as to when the next general election will be, but the promise is welcome.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has said, we have waited three years and we have still not got those recommendations on the statute book. Therefore, in the interest of our constitutional duties as well as in the interest of the fine balance between the civil rights of an individual and the courts and the powers of the police in our country, we have no alternative—I say this with the utmost sincerity and firmness—but to divide the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I apologise in advance that I will be unable to address myself to a number of the detailed points that have been raised in the course of the debate because I have had to truncate my remarks. I recognise that a number of Members have raised questions concerning the Stalker report and I shall address that matter immediately.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have seen the report submitted to the Chief Constable by Mr. Stalker. On 13 June my right hon. Friend told the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that he understood this to be an interim report. At one point, however, there was a misunderstanding, wherein my right hon. Friend and myself believed it to be a final report on which certain supplementary questions had been asked. In fact, this was an interim report and I regret if anybody has been misled as a result of our misunderstanding.
The task, upon which Mr. Stalker had embarked and had largely completed, will now be carried to its conclusion by the same inquiry team consisting of the same officers but now under the leadership of Mr. Colin Sampson, the chief constable of West Yorkshire. As I have not seen the report, I cannot comment further on the suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate. I certainly agree with those right hon and hon. Members who urge that the report should be carried through to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We are anxious to see that that happens.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). who opened this debate, sought to explain the position of the Labour party in relation to the renewal of these provisions. I would not suggest for one moment that the Labour party is not aware of, and does not sympathise with, the problems that are faced by the security forces in Northern Ireland. I do not question its total opposition to terrorism in the Province, but I question its judgment in deciding to vote against this order tonight. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that it would be a gross dereliction of duty if this House did not pass this order to renew these provisions which are absolutely essential to the continued battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West implied that, in some way, we now accept these provisions as an entrenched feature of life in Northern Ireland and that they are easily passed by this House. We continue to renew the provisions every six months, to go through them with some care and to answer the points made about them. Equally. we have had frequent and totally independent reviews conducted into the nature of this legislation, most recently by the late Sir George Baker who concluded, among other things, that we could not do without legislation broadly along the lines that at present exists. Nobody takes this for granted and we want, as my right hon. Friend said in opening this debate, the minimum movement away from normality in Northern Ireland necessary to cope with the situation that confronts society, and especially the security forces in the Province.
I cannot comment on the particular case about Miss Walsh which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. It predates even my time in Northern Ireland, and I do not quibble. However, the armed forces are empowered to

arrest under section 14 and the police under section 11 of the legislation. Therefore, if the armed forces arrested Miss Walsh, they would have done so under section 14. Regarding armed forces' arrests and police arrests, we intend to introduce in an amendment the test of reasonable suspicion. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regard that as a move in the right direction. The power of detention is included in section 12, and, although we have no intention of reactivating or reusing that power, the Government judge that it would be premature to remove it from the statute book now.
I must challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his allegation of falling standards of justice in Northern Ireland. I do not believe it is possible to follow the road he suggests of ruling out in all circumstances uncorroborated evidence, even where it is given by a former accomplice. However, one can expect the courts to treat any such evidence with the utmost rigour, and in Northern Ireland they do just that.
When the Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether to prosecute, he must make his decision on the basis that if there were a jury a conviction would be likely beyond reasonable doubt. That is the only standard applied by the courts in Northern Ireland. The judges must warn themselves about the danger of accepting such evidence, and if there is a conviction, unlike the position in Great Britain, anyone convicted in a court of first instance or in the High Court of Northern Ireland has an automatic appeal to a three-judge court. The DPP and the judges in the courts in Northern Ireland have, with the utmost integrity, sought in the most difficult circumstances to uphold standards of British justice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds delivered a message to absent Unionist Members of this House with force and vigour, and I hope that they have ears to hear that message. He paid a proper tribute to the police forces of Britain, Ireland and the continent and to the law enforcement agencies in the United States. There is a new mood of co-operation about in the international battle against terrorism. I do not claim that we have beaten terrorism either internationally or within the island of Ireland. The IRA, in particular, and other terrorist organisations retain their ability to murder and maim, but there is a new momentum, not least within the island of Ireland, where it can be attributed to the Anglo-Irish agreement and the impetus that that has given to cross-border security co-operation.
My hon. Friend asked about defendants who might seek to avoid extradition from the United States, even after the passage of the supplementary treaty by the whole of the Senate. He said that they could claim that they had not or would not receive a fair trial in Northern Ireland. I would not expect that to happen. When the United States federal judge Sprizzo upheld Joseph Doherty's appeal against extradition in 1984, he also made absolutely clear his opinion that Doherty had received a fair trial in Belfast in 1981. He specifically rejected the contention that the Northern Ireland system of justice, including Diplock courts, was unfair. We expect. United States courts to continue to get that right. I t was a most important judgment, of which I hope that other courts in the United States will take note.
In cases where these matters are in dispute, we certainly make available witnesses to go to courts in foreign


jurisdictions to give evidence about the nature of the judicial and prison systems in Northern Ireland and any other factors that may be taken into account by the courts.
My hon. Friend went on to pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) who also mentioned, rightly, the pressures that prison officers are under at present in Northern Ireland, and paid tribute to those prison officers. I endorse both tributes. By financial and other forms of support, the Government have shown their support for the work that has been done by the RUC. Expenditure on the police service has increased fivefold in the last 10 years and there have been two increases in the authorised establishment in the last five years. In terms of the total hours worked in Northern Ireland, we have now the highest level of police effort since the time of the hunger strike in 1981. That shows the Government's commitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Other points have been raised in the debate. I shall write to hon. Members to clear up any outstanding matters. I commend the order to the House.

Question put

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 57.

Division No. 228]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Galley, Roy


Ancram, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ashdown, Paddy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Aspinwall, Jack
Gow, Ian


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gregory, Conal


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bellingham, Henry
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Benyon, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Best, Keith
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hanley, Jeremy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bottomley, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayes, J.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brinton, Tim
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Hirst, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (Wton S)
Hunter, Andrew


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Coombs, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, John
Knowles, Michael


Couchman, James
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dunn, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Livsey, Richard


Favell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Nicholas





McCurley, Mrs Anna
Powley, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Proctor, K. Harvey


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Raffan, Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Major, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Malins, Humfrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Malone, Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Maples, John
Rowe, Andrew


Marlow, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Watson, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Newton, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steven
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)



Pollock, Alexander
Tellers for the Ayes:


Portillo, Michael
 Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
 Mr. Michael Neubert.


Powell, William (Corby)





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hume, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Barron, Kevin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bell, Stuart
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mallon, Seamus


Bermingham, Gerald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Michie, William


Caborn, Richard
Nellist, David


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Pike, Peter


Clay, Robert
Raynsford, Nick


Clelland, David Gordon
Redmond, Martin


Cohen, Harry
Richardson, Ms Jo


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Deakins, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Dormand, Jack
Snape, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Soley, Clive


Fatchett, Derek
Straw, Jack


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Wareing, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Welsh, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Winnick, David


Foster, Derek



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Tellers for the Noes:


George, Bruce
 Mr.Norman Hogg and Sir


Haynes, Frank
 Ray Gower.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (INSIDER DEALING)

Resolved,
That the draft Company Securities (Insider Dealing) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPANIES)

Resolved,
That the draft Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved. —[Dr. Boyson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (BUSINESS NAMES)

Resolved,
That the draft Business Names (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved.— [Dr. Boyson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION)

Resolved,
That the draft Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st May be approved. — [Dr. Boyson.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES

That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Council House Sales (Valuation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd]

Mr. Ian Gow: Sometimes an hon. Member is able to bring to the attention of the House a particular case which reveals a failing in legislation, and where the Minister, by adminstrative action, can remedy an injustice not just for the citizen who has sought help from his Member of Parliament but for thousands of others as well. The House is considering such a case this evening.
My hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I owe a great deal, will be able, by administrative action, to help not only my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lee, who have journeyed to Westminster for the debate, but many others in a similar situation. Mr. and Mrs. Lee live at 23 Colwood crescent, Eastbourne. Mr. Lee is a skilled mechanic, working six days a week. His wife looks after their four year old son Daniel. They are a super family. Their house at 23 Colwood crescent is owned by the Eastbourne borough council. Last year, Mr. and Mrs. Lee sought to exercise the right conferred on them by Parliament to buy their own home. On 2 August 1985, the borough secretary wrote to my constituents placing an open market value of £17,500 on the house, from which Mr. and Mrs. Lee were entitled to deduct 39 per cent. because of their nine years' tenancy. Quite properly the borough secretary said in his letter:
As mentioned in my previous letter, the above property is a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the 'Parkinson' type. I must point out that should you decide to proceed with the purchase of the property, you will not he entitled to assistance from the Housing Defects Act 1984.
When Mr. and Mrs. Lee received that letter they consulted their Member of Parliament about the value of £17,500 which had been placed on their defective house. On 9 August that Member of Parliament wrote to the borough secretary in the following terms:
Is it really the view of your Council that, if it was to place this house on the market, the price which it would realise (freehold and with vacant possession) is £17,500? Have you asked Estate Agents for their advice as to the price which they think that they would be able to obtain for your Council, at the present time, if it was minded to sell the house with vacant possession?
The borough secretary replied on 19 August as follows:
It is correct that the Council considers the value of the property to be £17,500. I have not sought any advice from Estate Agents on this matter. If Mr. and Mrs. Lee consider that the valuation is incorrect, perhaps you would remind them of their rights under Section 11 which I did point out to them in my letter of 2nd August.
Mr. and Mrs. Lee did indeed exercise their right of appeal to the district valuer. On 28 February 1986 he issued his determination, from which I quote:
The property was inspected on 16 January 1986 and is a semi-detached, 3 bedroom house of prefabricated reinforced concrete construction with a tiled roof and was built in the 1920s. … Representations either verbal and/or written from the landlord and the tenant have been considered together with all relevant valuations and available market evidence. Accordingly I determine the market value in accordance with the Act as at 10 April 1985 at £16,250. … No structural survey has been made".
So the district valuer decided not to make a structural survey even though he knew that this was a prefabricated reinforced concrete house of the Parkinson type.
Mr. Lee came to my surgery on 5 April and handed to me the district valuer's determination dated 28 February. Three days later, on 8 April, I wrote to the district valuer as follows:
My constituent Mr. Glen Lee … came to see me on Saturday morning. He handed to me your letter to him dated 28th February 1986, and I have before me a copy of your Determination of the same date. In the sixth paragraph of your Determination you say that you have considered 'all relevant valuations and available market evidence'. So that I may advise my Constituent, could you please make available to me those 'relevant valuations and available market evidence' which you considered? Why did you make no structural survey of this property? Surely, when you know that this is a Parkinson type house, there is a overwhelming case for a structural survey to be carried out?
The district valuer replied to my letter of 17 April:
I am looking into the questions you have raised and will write again as soon as possible.
On 21 April the chief valuer's office wrote to me as follows:
It would not be appropriate for him"—
that is the district valuer—
to give you the information which you now request. The DV has made his statutory determination using his professional knowledge and taking into account all relevant matters of which he was aware. … I regret that I consider further discussion of any individual cases subsequent to a determination would serve no useful purpose.
I was dissatisfied with that reply from the assistant chief valuer. Three days later, on 24 April, I wrote to the chairman of the board of Inland Revenue, Sir Lawrence Airey, in the following terms:
In my opinion, the two specific questions which I asked … of my letter dated 8th April were reasonable questions to be put by a Member of Parliament, who has been consulted by one of his Constituents. May I ask, please, that you should re-consider the Assistant Chief Valuer's decision not to answer those two questions?
Meanwhile on 29 April, the private secretary to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction had written to me about a possible approved method of repair for the Parkinson type of house. The private secretary said:
The NHBC
the National House-Building Council—
tells us that two firms are now preparing schemes for the repair of Parkinson houses but that none has yet been submitted for appraisal. We have approached both of those firms … direct. Both are engaged in other, commercially more attractive, repair schemes and although they are proceeding with the development of schemes for Parkinson houses, they doubt that these will he submitted for approval until the summer. This means that they could not be approved, if that was indeed the outcome, before the autumn.
I sent a copy of that letter dated 29 April to the district valuer on the following day. I asked him to confirm that when he placed a value of £16,250 on the property he had taken proper account of the information contained in the private secretary's letter. That is relevant, because the building societies are extremely reluctant, and in many cases refuse, to lend on the security of an unrepaired, prefabricated reinforced concrete house. That reluctance or even refusal of building societies is even greater where there is no approved method of repair. I have not received a reply to my letter dated 30 April 1986 to the district valuer, although, in fairness to him, I should say that he has written that he hopes to be able to reply shortly. The answer is simple, had he taken into account that fact of which I believe he was unaware when he made the


valuation—namely, that there is no approved method of repair and there will not be one until the autumn of this year.
Another option was open to my constituents. If they were dissatisfied, as they were, and in my view rightly, with the valuation which had been placed on the house originally by the borough council and then the reduced value of £16,250 by the district valuer, it would have been possible for them to have achieved their ambition and hope of becoming owners rather than tenants if the borough council had been willing to move them and their son, Daniel, to another council property and to move into 23 Colwood crescent a family that did not want to exercise the right to buy.
I wrote to the chairman of the housing committee of the Eastbourne borough council on 8 May in the following terms:
The District Valuer has now re-determined the value of the property at £16,250. Mr. and Mrs. Lee and their Member of Parliament believe that that figure of £16,250 is still much too high; that is to say that if your council was to offer the property for sale with vacant possession, we do not believe that it could find a purchaser who would pay £16,250 for the property. As you know, Building Societies are most reluctant to lend, if they will lend at all, on the security of an unrepaired prefabricated reinforced concrete house …
However, the purpose of this letter is to ask whether your Council will please re-consider its decision not to offer a transfer for Mr. and Mrs. Lee. Many of your tenants do not wish to buy their home, or cannot afford to buy their home. Because of the problems, which are self-evident, in Mr. and Mrs. Lee buying their present home, would it not be reasonable for a tenant who did not wish to buy or who could not afford to buy to live at 23 Colwood Crescent, and for Mr. and Mrs. Lee and their son to move into another of your properties, not made of pre-fabricated reinforced concrete?
On 14 May I received an acknowledgement from the chairman of the housing committee saying that the request which I had made for a transfer would be considered at the meeting of the housing committee on 28 May. To my regret, the chairman has not replied to me, even though the housing committee met as long ago as 28 May.
On 20 May I received a letter from the deputy chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue:
The District Valuer, who does not act for either party, is required to give his valuation of the price which the property would realise at the relevant time if sold on the open market … the District Valuer is put in the position of an independent expert here. The legislation makes no provision for appeal, nor is the District Valuer required to render an account of how his professional judgment was informed and exercised … There is no invariable rule on the necessity for structural surveys in the valuation process.
Those are the facts of this case. All that Mr. and Mrs. Lee ask is that they should be enabled to exercise that right to buy which the House has conferred upon them. They have the misfortune—not from their choice, but because of the accident of events—to live in a prefabricated reinforced concrete house owned by Eastbourne borough council. They have a choice—either they can buy their present house at the value determined properly under what is now section 127 of the Housing Act 1985—
The value of a dwelling-house at the relevant time shall be taken to be the price which at that time it would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor
or the council could, and I believe should, accede to Mr. and Mrs. Lee's request for a transfer to a house of conventional construction.
As to the second option of a transfer, I readily concede that that does not fall within the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or of any of his

ministerial colleagues. That is a matter for the borough council. But it is within my hon. Friend's responsibility to deal with this question of a valuation. I believe that in a case of this kind, when it is known that the property is defective and is of a Parkinson type—a type designated under the Housing Defects Act 1984—it is surely right that there should be a structural survey.
Reflect on this: it would be inconceivable for someone buying that house on the open market, knowing of its defects, to proceed without a survey. If that is the standard on which anyone buying in the private sector would insist, there should be no lower standard where the public sector is involved.
I believe that the district valuer should be willing to disclose in cases of this kind the evidence on which he has based his valuation—in this case £16,250. There is no need to give names or addresses. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Lee, could have been satisfied, although I think it most unlikely, if the full evidence on which the district valuer had based his valuation had been made known to them and to their Member of Parliament. It is not truth that shrinks from disclosure, it is only the possibility of a valuation which could not be sustained by the facts and the true evidence which shrinks from disclosure.
The deputy chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue was right when he said that under what is now the Housing Act 1985 there is no provision for appeal against the determination by the district valuer. That is so. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is always possible to seek a judicial review of conduct of this kind by a district valuer.
The action which I hope that my hon. Friend will take is, as I said, administrative. It does not require legislation In a case like this the Inland Revenue should ask district valuers to make a structural survey. The Inland Revenue should make available the evidence on which it bases the valuation which is fixed by the district valuer. It is all the more important that that evidence should be made available at the request of the prospective purchaser where there is no right of appeal against the decision of the district valuer.
It may mean that when the story of these times comes to be written the case of the Lee family will not receive even a footnote in the history books. However, their case is one which deserves the sympathetic consideration of the Government. The case of Mr. and Mrs. Lee is reproduced over and over again in other constituencies, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to gibe me the assurances for which I ask. I remind my hon. Friend that there remains one last protection for a citizen who has been treated unfairly and that is to petition the courts for a judicial review of an administrative decision of this kind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I begin by saying how fortunate Mr. and Mrs. Lee are to have such a diligent Member to champion their case in the House. No one who listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said could fail to be moved by the story of Mr. and Mrs. Lee, who are simply trying to exercise a right given to them by Parliament and purchase a house at a price that they feel to be fair.
Some of the questions put to me by my hon. Friend fall outside my ministerial responsibility. As he will know better than me, part of the responsibilities he referred to


relate to the Treasury. The particular points he put to me, that it should be mandatory to make a structural survey and that evidence should be disclosed by the district valuers, are matters which fall to my colleagues at the Treasury to whose attention I shall bring those observations.
My hon. Friend's contributions on the subject of the right to buy are always particularly welcome in view of his knowledge and experience as a former Minister for Housing and Construction. Indeed, he is the architect of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, which made important improvements in the right-to-buy scheme.
I know, from the work I have done with my hon. Friend, how concerned he has always been to ensure that right-to-buy valuations should be fair. I hope to refer to some of the steps that he took as Minister for Housing and Construction to test their accuracy.
There has been a debate on this matter in the context of the Housing and Planning Bill, which provides for an increase in the discount on a flat sold under the right to buy. The case which my hon. Friend has raised, that of Mr. Glen Lee, concerns a house rather than a flat, a house built of prefabricated reinforced concrete — PRC for short. But the same issue arises — how to establish a fair valuation for a type of property that rarely changes hands on the open market.
My hon. Friend asked some specific questions about the valuations and about making evidence available. In view of his interest, and because I knew that he was going to ask the specific point, I have made some inquiries. I think that my hon. Friend understands that I am not able to reveal the prices at which other Parkinson houses in the area have changed hands because that would be a breach of confidence.
However, I understand that other sales have taken place at prices higher than the value that the district valuer has determined for Mr. Lee's house. That is not conclusive evidence in itself. We do not know how far those prices took account of the nature of the properties, but they do provide a useful input for the district valuer's valuation. Those facts were taken into account, together with other information about the local property market.
Listening to my hon. Friend's speech, it was not quite clear whether he had in his possession a letter to him dated 18 June from the district valuer/valuation officer, dealing with some of the points that he had put in his earlier letter. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has that letter which begins:
I hope this reply will reach you in time for Thursday's debate.

Mr. Gow: No.

Sir George Young: It is a misfortune of the post that the copy has reached me but the original has not reached my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gow: What date is it?

Sir George Young: It is dated 18 June and is marked "FIRST CLASS POST".
That letter answers the specific questions that my hon. Friend has put. He asked about the repair schemes for Parkinson houses and that is referred to at the end of the letter where it says:
As to the matter of repair schemes for Parkinson houses, naturally the property Press is looked at constantly to

monitor progress on all PRC houses and although I am aware that steps have started to prepare schemes for Parkinson houses, my determination is related to 10 April 1985 which was before applications were invited for approval.
The letter also deals with other points. I hope that my hon. Friend will receive it in his post tomorrow morning.
In the correspondence my hon. Friend asked what evidence had been taken into account in this determination. The second point that he put to me was why no structural survey had been carried out. I think that my hon. Friend has seen the response given in the correspondence. I am advised that structural surveys of non-traditional houses are of little practical value unless
destructive survey techniques are used.
Those involve the removal of linings and renderings which could cause considerable damage to the property and so might not be acceptable to the prospective purchaser.
But the district valuer had taken into account the report of, at the time, a recent survey of the property which had been carried out by the local authority's structural engineer. The district valuer also considered a report produced by the Building Research Establishment on the structural condition of Parkinson-framed houses.
It seems to me, listening to the debate, that the most fruitful course, given that there is no appeal against the district valuer's valuation, is to pursue the question of a transfer. As my hon. Friend said, it is not a matter within my power to compel Eastbourne borough council to offer a transfer to Mr. and Mrs. Lee and I was distressed to learn that my hon. Friend had not had the courtesy of a reply from the chairman of the housing committee. But if the debate has served any useful purpose, it might increase the pressure on the borough council to offer a suitable property, I hope not of PRC construction, to Mr. and Mrs. Lee. The discount is, of course, transferable should they move to another local authority home. That would be an honourable way out.
An alternative approach is for Mr. and Mrs. Lee not to complete the purchase—they are under no obligation to do so—and if they feel, as my hon. Friend does, that the valuation is unrealistic, and that subsequent events will prove that to be the case, they can reapply at a later date and have another valuation put on the property. They will be entitled to a higher discount as the years roll by. The points concerning the Treasury will be referred to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that he will want to write and deal with the specific comments made.
One cannot be complacent about the valuation of property sold under the right to buy. My hon. Friend outlined a real difficulty when the district valuer is required to determine the value of a property that is of a kind that does not change hands often. In such a case, the valuer must make the best use he can of such market evidence as is available. The Government do not think it appropriate to set up a special system of forced sales, which my hon. Friend put forward as one solution to deal with the question of the valuation of flats, particularly in high-rise blocks. There would also be difficulties in arranging for a test sale of a comparable property whenever there is difficulty in valuing a PRC house such as Mr. Lee's.
But we are monitoring re-sales of former council properties in selected areas in order to look for signs that the original valuations were excessive, and will certainly look very carefully at any evidence that there is a significant problem. As my hon. Friend will know from the


exercise that he initiated in the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Ealing, the initial valuations by the district valuer were proved to be roughly in line with market valuations when other flats in the same block were put on the market. I realise that my remarks will not be of any great consolation to Mr. and Mrs. Lee, and that is as much a matter of sorrow for me as for my hon. Friend.

But if the possibility of a transfer can now be vigorously pursued with Eastbourne borough council, my hon. Friend's initiative may not have been in vain.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.